Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.052885264 = product of:
  0.10577053 = sum of:
    0.10577053 = sum of:
      0.0633322 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0633322 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04243833 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.05087889 = product of:
  0.10175778 = sum of:
    0.10175778 = sum of:
      0.0522464 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0522464 = score(doc=5365,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.

0.043227583 = product of:
  0.08645517 = sum of:
    0.08645517 = sum of:
      0.036943786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036943786 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A discussion of the importance of clear cataloguing policies and routines as the basis of quality control, in relation to the methods used in the College of Mexico Library. The fundamental principle is to prevent errors occuring rather than to correct them subsequently. Indices of quality and effiency in relation to errors which do and do not affect retrieval, established through monthly review of samples of the work of each cataloguer, are used to monitor activities and ensure high standards. This process, essentially collaborative, promotes an overall culture of quality

Date

30. 1.1999 19:22:45

0.043227583 = product of:
  0.08645517 = sum of:
    0.08645517 = sum of:
      0.036943786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036943786 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
      0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04951138 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.030876845 = product of:
  0.06175369 = sum of:
    0.06175369 = sum of:
      0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026388418 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
      0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035365272 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.028292218 = product of:
  0.056584436 = sum of:
    0.056584436 = product of:
      0.11316887 = sum of:
        0.11316887 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11316887 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.028292218 = product of:
  0.056584436 = sum of:
    0.056584436 = product of:
      0.11316887 = sum of:
        0.11316887 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11316887 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.021219164 = product of:
  0.04243833 = sum of:
    0.04243833 = product of:
      0.08487666 = sum of:
        0.08487666 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08487666 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.021219164 = product of:
  0.04243833 = sum of:
    0.04243833 = product of:
      0.08487666 = sum of:
        0.08487666 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08487666 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.021219164 = product of:
  0.04243833 = sum of:
    0.04243833 = product of:
      0.08487666 = sum of:
        0.08487666 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08487666 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.021110734 = product of:
  0.042221468 = sum of:
    0.042221468 = product of:
      0.084442936 = sum of:
        0.084442936 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084442936 = score(doc=6365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 6365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.018659428 = product of:
  0.037318856 = sum of:
    0.037318856 = product of:
      0.07463771 = sum of:
        0.07463771 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07463771 = score(doc=1103,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

0.01770189 = product of:
  0.03540378 = sum of:
    0.03540378 = product of:
      0.07080756 = sum of:
        0.07080756 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080756 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

0.017682636 = product of:
  0.035365272 = sum of:
    0.035365272 = product of:
      0.070730545 = sum of:
        0.070730545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070730545 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243

0.017682636 = product of:
  0.035365272 = sum of:
    0.035365272 = product of:
      0.070730545 = sum of:
        0.070730545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070730545 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.017682636 = product of:
  0.035365272 = sum of:
    0.035365272 = product of:
      0.070730545 = sum of:
        0.070730545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070730545 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 4.2020 20:22:29

0.015004216 = product of:
  0.030008432 = sum of:
    0.030008432 = product of:
      0.060016863 = sum of:
        0.060016863 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060016863 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

0.014146109 = product of:
  0.028292218 = sum of:
    0.028292218 = product of:
      0.056584436 = sum of:
        0.056584436 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056584436 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1999 20:40:57

0.014146109 = product of:
  0.028292218 = sum of:
    0.028292218 = product of:
      0.056584436 = sum of:
        0.056584436 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056584436 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.014146109 = product of:
  0.028292218 = sum of:
    0.028292218 = product of:
      0.056584436 = sum of:
        0.056584436 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056584436 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22