Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03504921 = product of:
  0.17524604 = sum of:
    0.17524604 = weight(_text_:books in 5384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17524604 = score(doc=5384,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.20673718 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04277542 = queryNorm
        0.8476755 = fieldWeight in 5384, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5384)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The acquisition of foreign research materials has been an important activity of US university libraries from the early 19th century to the present day. Assesses the extent of bibliographic control over foreign published books and reviews previous evaluations of national bibliographic utility hit rates and quality assessment studies of bibliographic records. These reviews suggest that the bibliographic control of general research books is better than the bibliographic control of foreign research books. However, the previous studies' varying sampling periods and techniques necessitate a baseline study to confirm the asserted difference of these 2 groups os books. Results of the baseline study reported here conforms a lack of bibliographic control for a substanbtial portion of foreign books, the presence of LCC, and the level of bibliographic description shows that the quality of bibliographic records for foreign books is lower than the quality of records for domestic books

0.011039463 = product of:
  0.055197313 = sum of:
    0.055197313 = weight(_text_:books in 6683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055197313 = score(doc=6683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20673718 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04277542 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 6683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6683)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A textual identity network is a set of documents that share common semantic or linguistic content. For example, the textual identity network of Ben-Hur includes the progenitor work, translations, screen play adaptations, and film performances. A network might also include successively numbered editions, simultaneous editions published in various countries, and other derivative forms. This network expresses how a work evolves over time and through a variety of media. Evolving textual identity can be expressed as a set of relationships among the members of the network. Several taxonomies of intertextual associations have been developed for use in information retrieval systems. The individual documents (books, films, computer files, etc.) contained in a textual identity network can be associated through a number of pairwise relationships, and the network can be studied as a system. This basic pattern makes textual networks ideal candidates for study using network analysis techniques, allowing summary measures that characterize networks. Topological indices provide high-level measures of network structure. This paper concludes on a discussion of how topological indices might be used in document retrieval

0.0051138196 = product of:
  0.025569098 = sum of:
    0.025569098 = product of:
      0.051138196 = sum of:
        0.051138196 = weight(_text_:history in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051138196 = score(doc=3033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1989905 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04277542 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this paper I describe a conceptual design of a bibliographic retrieval system that enables more thourough control of bibliographic entities. A bibliographic entity has 2 components: the intellectual work and the physical item. Users searching bibliographic retrieval systems generally do not search for a specific item, but are willing to retrieve one of several alternative manifestations of a work. However, contemporary bibliographic retrieval systems are based solely on the descriptions of items. Works are described only implcitly by collocating descriptions of items. This method has resulted in a tool that does not include important descriptive attributes of the work, e.g. information regarding its history, its genre, or its bibliographic relationships. A bibliographic relationship is an association between 2 bibliographic entities. A system evaluation methodology wasused to create a conceptual schema for a bibliographic retrieval system. The model is based upon an analysis of data elements in the USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. The conceptual schema describes a database comprising 2 separate files of bibliographic descriptions, one of works and the other of items. Each file consists of individual descriptive surrogates of their respective entities. the specific data content of each file is defined by a data dictionary. Data elements used in the description of bibliographic works reflect the nature of works as intellectual and linguistic objects. The descriptive elements of bibliographic items describe the physical properties of bibliographic entities. Bibliographic relationships constitute the logical strucutre of the database

0.0028977394 = product of:
  0.014488697 = sum of:
    0.014488697 = product of:
      0.028977394 = sum of:
        0.028977394 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028977394 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14979222 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04277542 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0023181913 = product of:
  0.011590957 = sum of:
    0.011590957 = product of:
      0.023181913 = sum of:
        0.023181913 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023181913 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14979222 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04277542 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22