Search (32 results, page 2 of 2)

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 5570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=5570,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5570, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5570)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the standard subject language used in library catalogues, are often criticized for their lack of currency, biased language, and atypical syndetic structure. Conversely, folksonomies (or tags), which rely on the natural language of their users, offer a flexibility often lacking in controlled vocabularies and may offer a means of augmenting more rigid controlled vocabularies such as LCSH. Content analysis studies have demonstrated the potential for folksonomies to be used as a means of enhancing subject access to materials, and libraries are beginning to integrate tagging systems into their catalogues. This study examines the utility of tags as a means of enhancing subject access to materials in library online public access catalogues (OPACs) through usability testing with the LibraryThing for Libraries catalogue enhancements. Findings indicate that while they cannot replace LCSH, tags do show promise for aiding information seeking in OPACs. In the context of information systems design, the study revealed that while folksonomies have the potential to enhance subject access to materials, that potential is severely limited by the current inability of catalogue interfaces to support tag-based searches alongside standard catalogue searches.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explores the question of whether academic libraries keep up with the changes in the LCSH system. Analysis of the handling of 15 subject headings in 50 academic library catalogues available via the Internet found that libraries are not consistently maintaining subject authority control, or making syndetic references and scope notes in their catalogues. Discusses the results from the perspective of the libraries' performance, performance on the headings overall, performance on references, performance on the type of change made to the headings,a nd performance within 3 widely used onlien catalogue systems (DRA, INNOPAC and NOTIS). Discusses the implications of the findings in relationship to expressions of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of subject cataloguing expressed by discussion groups on the Internet

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=6113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 28(2001) no.4, S.206-208 (C. Arsenault):"Overall, this is an excellent work, on an ever increasingly pertinent topic. This long-awaited second edition provides a thorough and comprehensive update of an already important text. I very highly recommend it to professionals and academics alike ; both neophytes and veterans will find it valuable. It is a fundamental work that cannot be ignored in the field of subject analysis and retrieval for all bibliographic systems, including online catalogs."

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.

0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 374, 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=374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

24. 9.2021 12:22:02

0.008748951 = product of:
  0.017497903 = sum of:
    0.017497903 = product of:
      0.034995805 = sum of:
        0.034995805 = weight(_text_:22 in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034995805 = score(doc=4360,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 7.2018 16:22:16

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitteilungen VÖB 48(1995) H.1, S.66-68 (K. Niedermair) - Vgl. auch Lepsky, K. in: Bibliotheksdienst 29(1995) H.3, S.500-519; Bibliothek: Forschung u. Praxis 19(1995) H.2, S.251-254 (G. Hartwieg; auch in: LDV-Forum Bd. 12, Nr. 2, Jg. 1995, S.22-29 [unter: http://www.jlcl.org/1995_Heft2/Rezensionen_19-27.pdf]) .

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 3351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=3351,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3351, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3351)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Investigates the extent to which title keywords convey subject content and compares the relative effectiveness of searching title keywords using 2 search strategies to examine whether adjacency operators in title keyword searches are effective in improving recall and precision of online searching. Title keywords from a random sample of titles in the field of economics were searched on FirstSearch, using the WorldCat database, which is equivalent in coverage to the OCLC OLUC, with and without adjacency of the keywords specified. The LCSH of the items retrieved were compared with the sample title subject headings to determine the degree of match or relevance and the values for precision and recall were calculated. Results indicated that, when keywords were discipline specific, adjacency operators improved precision with little degradation of recall. Systems that allow positional operators or rank output by proximity of terms may increase search success

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=386,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using subject headings for Online Retrieval is an indispensable tool for online system desingners who are developing new systems or refining exicting ones. The book describes subject analysis and subject searching in online catalogs, including the limitations of retrieval, and demonstrates how such limitations can be overcome through system design and programming. The book describes the Library of Congress Subject headings system and system characteristics, shows how information is stored in machine readable files, and offers examples of and recommendations for successful methods. Tables are included to support these recommendations, and diagrams, graphs, and bar charts are used to provide results of data analyses.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=5611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing's Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Headings Languages has identified a set of eleven principles for subject heading languages and excerpted the texts that match each principle from the instructions for each of eleven national subject indexing systems, including excerpts from the LC's Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. This study compares the IFLA principles with other texts that express the principles underlying LCSH, especially Library of Congress Subject Headings: Principles of Structure and Policies for Application, prepared by Lois Mai Chan for the Library of Congress in 1990, Chan's later book on LCSH, and earlier documents by Haykin and Cutter. The principles are further elaborated for clarity and discussed

0.007700737 = product of:
  0.015401474 = sum of:
    0.015401474 = product of:
      0.030802948 = sum of:
        0.030802948 = weight(_text_:systems in 4549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030802948 = score(doc=4549,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 4549, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper attempts to explain the wide dissemination of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) within digital libraries and presents some of the advantages and disadvantages of using this controlled vocabulary in digital collections. The paper also presents other classifications used in digital collections for subject access and explores ways of improving search functionality in digital collections that employ LCSH. Design/methodology/approach - Unlike traditional libraries that use Library of Congress Classification for organization and retrieval, digital libraries use metadata forms for organization and retrieval. The collections exist in cyberspace of the internet which is known for containing the universe of knowledge. The use of LCSH for information retrieval has been widely criticized for its difficulty of use and its information retrieval effectiveness in online environments. The Library of Congress (LOC) has claimed the headings were not based on comprehensive principles nor ever intended to cover the universe of knowledge. Despite these claims and criticisms, LCSH is the most popular choice for subject access in digital libraries. Findings - The number of digital collections increases every year and LCSH is still the most popular choice of controlled vocabulary for subject access. Of the numerous criticisms, difficulties of use and user unfamiliarity are the greatest disadvantages of using LCSH for subject access. Average users only have a vague notion of what they are looking for when initializing a search. More work is required in automated generation of subject headings and increased usage of LCSH in faceted search retrieval systems. This will provide users with better access to the LCSH used in the back end of information retrieval. Originality/value - The Greek researchers who developed the Dissertation DSPace system believe this type of module will eventually replace the traditional keyword-based indexing back ends employed by many information retrieval modules within current digital library systems. The system offers the type of access and interactivity that will acquaint users with how LCSH looks and is used. Faceted search and automated pattern matching using an ontology based on LCSH have the best promise of overcoming the disadvantages that have always plagued the LOC-controlled vocabulary. These retrieval techniques give LCSH an opportunity to finally achieve the optimal precision and recall it has so far failed to deliver.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 2918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=2918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports an algorithmic approach to the automatic generation of thesauri for electronic community systems. The techniques used included terms filtering, automatic indexing, and cluster analysis. The testbed for the research was the Worm Community System, which contains a comprehensive library of specialized community data and literature, currently in use by molecular biologists who study the nematode worm. The resulting worm thesaurus included 2709 researchers' names, 798 gene names, 20 experimental methods, and 4302 subject descriptors. On average, each term had about 90 weighted neighbouring terms indicating relevant concepts. The thesaurus was developed as an online search aide. Tests the worm thesaurus in an experiment with 6 worm researchers of varying degrees of expertise and background. The experiment showed that the thesaurus was an excellent 'memory jogging' device and that it supported learning and serendipitous browsing. Despite some occurrences of obvious noise, the system was useful in suggesting relevant concepts for the researchers' queries and it helped improve concept recall. With a simple browsing interface, an automatic thesaurus can become a useful tool for online search and can assist researchers in exploring and traversing a dynamic and complex electronic community system

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper looks at ways in which traditional classification and indexing tools have dealt with the relationships between constituent terms; variations in these are examined and compared with the methods used in machine searching, particularly of the Internet and World Wide Web. Apparent correspondences with features of index languages are identified, and further methods of applying classification and indexing theory to machine retrieval are proposed. There are various ways in which indexing and retrieval systems, both conventional and electronic, deal with the problem of searching for documents on a subject basis, and various approaches to the analysis and processing of a query. There appear to be three basic models; the taxonomic or structural system, in which the user is offered a map of the `universe of knowledge'; the language based system, which offers a vocabulary of the subject and a grammar for dealing with compound statements; and the mathematical model using the language of symbolic logic or the algebra of set theory