Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  1. Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005) 0.06 
    0.06324046 = product of:
  0.12648092 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.104993455 = sum of:
      0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06701787 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
      0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037975587 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this article recording evidence for data values in addition to the values themselves in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is proposed, with the aim of improving the expressiveness and reliability of those records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. Recording the history of changes in data values is also proposed, with the aim of reinforcing recorded evidence. First, evidence that can be recorded is categorized into classes: identifiers of rules or tasks, action descriptions of them, and input and output data of them. Dates of recording values and evidence are an additional class. Then, the relative usefulness of evidence classes and also levels (i.e., the record, data element, or data value level) to which an individual evidence class is applied, is examined. Second, examples that can be viewed as recorded evidence in existing bibliographic records and current cataloging rules are shown. Third, some examples of bibliographic records and descriptive metadata with notes of evidence are demonstrated. Fourth, ways of using recorded evidence are addressed.
    Date
    18. 6.2005 13:16:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882
  2. Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996) 0.03 
    0.026983513 = product of:
  0.053967025 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
    0.02531706 = product of:
      0.05063412 = sum of:
        0.05063412 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05063412 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
  3. Rowley, J.: ¬The controlled versus natural indexing languages debate revisited : a perspective on information retrieval practice and research (1994) 0.02 
    0.02291517 = product of:
  0.04583034 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=7151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=7151,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 7151, 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=7151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases
    Source
    Journal of information science. 20(1994) no.2, S.108-119
  4. Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000) 0.02 
    0.020237632 = product of:
  0.040475264 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 32(2000) no.1, S.4-8
  5. Moreiro-González, J.-A.; Bolaños-Mejías, C.: Folksonomy indexing from the assignment of free tags to setup subject : a search analysis into the domain of legal history (2018) 0.01 
    0.013962056 = product of:
  0.055848222 = sum of:
    0.055848222 = product of:
      0.111696444 = sum of:
        0.111696444 = weight(_text_:history in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111696444 = score(doc=4640,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.5139763 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The behaviour and lexical quality of the folksonomies is examined by comparing two online social networks: Library-Thing (for books) and Flickr (for photos). We presented a case study that combines quantitative and qualitative elements, singularized by the lexical and functional framework. Our query was made by "Legal History" and by the synonyms "Law History" and "History of Law." We then examined the relevance, consistency and precision of the tags attached to the retrieved documents, in addition to their lexical composition. We identified the difficulties caused by free tagging and some of the folksonomy solutions that have been found to solve them. The results are presented in comparative tables, giving special attention to related tags within each retrieved document. Although the number of ambiguous or inconsistent tags is not very large, these do nevertheless represent the most obvious problem to search and retrieval in folksonomies. Relevance is high when the terms are assigned by especially competent taggers. Even with less expert taggers, ambiguity is often successfully corrected by contextualizing the concepts within related tags. A propinquity to associative and taxonomic lexical semantic knowledge is reached via contextual relationships.
  6. Broxis, P.F.: ASSIA social science information service (1989) 0.01 
    0.012661615 = product of:
  0.05064646 = sum of:
    0.05064646 = weight(_text_:science in 1511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05064646 = score(doc=1511,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 1511, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1511)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abtracts) started in 1987 as a bimonthly indexing and abstracting service in the society field, aimed at practitioners as well as sociologists. Considers the following aspects of the service: arrangement of ASSIA; journal coverage; indexing approach; services for subscribers; and who are the users?
  7. Leonard, L.E.: Inter-indexer consistency studies, 1954-1975 : a review of the literature and summary of study results (1977) 0.01 
    0.0125343595 = product of:
  0.050137438 = sum of:
    0.050137438 = weight(_text_:science in 7494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050137438 = score(doc=7494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 7494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Graduate School of Library Science, University of Illinois
  8. Morris, L.R.: ¬The frequency of use of Library of Congress Classification numbers and Dewey Decimal Classification numbers in the MARC file in the field of library science (1991) 0.01 
    0.010855075 = product of:
  0.0434203 = sum of:
    0.0434203 = weight(_text_:science in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0434203 = score(doc=2308,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The LCC and DDC systems were devised and updated by librarians who had and have no access to the eventual frequency of use of each number in those classification systems. 80% of the monographs in a MARC file of over 1.000.000 records are classified into 20% of the classification numbers in the field of library science and only 20% of the mongraphs are classified into 80% of the classification numbers in the field of library science. Classification of monographs coulld be made easier and performed more accurately if many of the little used and unused numbers were eliminated and many of the most crowded numbers were expanded. A number of examples are included
  9. Zunde, P.; Dexter, M.E.: Factors affecting indexing performance (1969) 0.01 
    0.010743736 = product of:
  0.042974945 = sum of:
    0.042974945 = weight(_text_:science in 7496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042974945 = score(doc=7496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 7496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7496)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Cooperating information societies: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, San Francisco, CA, 1.-4.10.1969. Ed.: J.B. North
  10. Boll, J.J.: DDC classification rules : an outline history and comparison of two sets of rules (1988) 0.01 
    0.009773439 = product of:
  0.039093755 = sum of:
    0.039093755 = product of:
      0.07818751 = sum of:
        0.07818751 = weight(_text_:history in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07818751 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3597834 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  11. Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960) 0.01 
    0.009493897 = product of:
  0.037975587 = sum of:
    0.037975587 = product of:
      0.075951174 = sum of:
        0.075951174 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075951174 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
  12. Qin, J.: Semantic similarities between a keyword database and a controlled vocabulary database : an investigation in the antibiotic resistance literature (2000) 0.01 
    0.0077536246 = product of:
  0.031014498 = sum of:
    0.031014498 = weight(_text_:science in 4386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031014498 = score(doc=4386,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 4386, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4386)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The 'KeyWords Plus' in the Science Citation Index database represents an approach to combining citation and semantic indexing in describing the document content. This paper explores the similariites or dissimilarities between citation-semantic and analytic indexing. The dataset consisted of over 400 matching records in the SCI and MEDLINE databases on antibiotic resistance in pneumonia. The degree of similarity in indexing terms was found to vary on a scale from completely different to completely identical with various levels in between. The within-document similarity in the 2 databases was measured by a variation on the Jaccard coefficient - the Inclusion Index. The average inclusion coefficient was 0,4134 for SCI and 0,3371 for Medline. The 20 terms occuring most frequently in each database were identified. The 2 groups of terms shared the same terms that consist of the 'intellectual base' for the subject. conceptual similarity was analyzed through scatterplots of matching and nonmatching terms vs. partially identical and broader/narrower terms. The study also found that both databases differed in assigning terms in various semantic categories. Implications of this research and further studies are suggested
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.166-180
  13. Gil-Leiva, I.; Alonso-Arroyo, A.: Keywords given by authors of scientific articles in database descriptors (2007) 0.01 
    0.0077536246 = product of:
  0.031014498 = sum of:
    0.031014498 = weight(_text_:science in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031014498 = score(doc=211,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this article, the authors analyze the keywords given by authors of scientific articles and the descriptors assigned to the articles to ascertain the presence of the keywords in the descriptors. Six-hundred forty INSPEC (Information Service for Physics, Engineering, and Computing), CAB (Current Agriculture Bibliography) abstracts, ISTA (Information Science and Technology Abstracts), and LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) database records were consulted. After detailed comparisons, it was found that keywords provided by authors have an important presence in the database descriptors studied; nearly 25% of all the keywords appeared in exactly the same form as descriptors, with another 21% though normalized, still detected in the descriptors. This means that almost 46% of keywords appear in the descriptors, either as such or after normalization. Elsewhere, three distinct indexing policies appear, one represented by INSPEC and LISA (indexers seem to have freedom to assign the descriptors they deem necessary); another is represented by CAB (no record has fewer than four descriptors and, in general, a large number of descriptors is employed). In contrast, in ISTA, a certain institutional code exists towards economy in indexing because 84% of records contain only four descriptors.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1175-1187
  14. Losee, R.: ¬A performance model of the length and number of subject headings and index phrases (2004) 0.01 
    0.0075969696 = product of:
  0.030387878 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 3725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=3725,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3725, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3725)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    When assigning subject headings or index terms to a document, how many terms or phrases should be used to represent the document? The contribution of an indexing phrase to locating and ordering documents can be compared to the contribution of a full-text query to finding documents. The length and number of phrases needed to equal the contribution of a full-text query is the subject of this paper. The appropriate number of phrases is determined in part by the length of the phrases. We suggest several rules that may be used to determine how many subject headings should be assigned, given index phrase lengths, and provide a general model for this process. A difference between characteristics of indexing "hard" science and "social" science literature is suggested.
  15. Tonta, Y.: ¬A study of indexing consistency between Library of Congress and British Library catalogers (1991) 0.01 
    0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Indexing consistency between Library of Congress and British Library catalogers using the LCSH is compared.82 titles published in 1987 in the field of library and information science were identified for comparison, and for each title its LC subject headings, assigned by both LC and BL catalogers, were compared. By applying Hooper's 'consistency of a pair' equation, the average indexing consistency value was calculated for the 82 titles. The average indexing value between LC and BL catalogers is 16% for exact matches, and 36% for partial matches
  16. David, C.; Giroux, L.; Bertrand-Gastaldy, S.; Lanteigne, D.: Indexing as problem solving : a cognitive approach to consistency (1995) 0.01 
    0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=3833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Forging new partnerships in information: converging technologies. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, ASIS'95, Chicago, IL, 9-12 October 1995. Ed.: T. Kinney
  17. Prasher, R.G.: Evaluation of indexing system (1989) 0.01 
    0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Herald of library science. 28(1989) no.3, S.157-65
  18. Evedove, P.R. Dal; Evedove Tartarotti, R.C. Dal; Lopes Fujita, M.S.: Verbal protocols in Brazilian information science : a perspective from indexing studies (2018) 0.01 
    0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 4783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=4783,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 4783, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4783)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  19. Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002) 0.01 
    0.006745878 = product of:
  0.013491756 = sum of:
    0.0071624913 = weight(_text_:science in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071624913 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.05820636 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.006329265 = product of:
      0.01265853 = sum of:
        0.01265853 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01265853 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science
  20. Lu, K.; Mao, J.; Li, G.: Toward effective automated weighted subject indexing : a comparison of different approaches in different environments (2018) 0.01 
    0.0063308077 = product of:
  0.02532323 = sum of:
    0.02532323 = weight(_text_:science in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02532323 = score(doc=4292,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Subject indexing plays an important role in supporting subject access to information resources. Current subject indexing systems do not make adequate distinctions on the importance of assigned subject descriptors. Assigning numeric weights to subject descriptors to distinguish their importance to the documents can strengthen the role of subject metadata. Automated methods are more cost-effective. This study compares different automated weighting methods in different environments. Two evaluation methods were used to assess the performance. Experiments on three datasets in the biomedical domain suggest the performance of different weighting methods depends on whether it is an abstract or full text environment. Mutual information with bag-of-words representation shows the best average performance in the full text environment, while cosine with bag-of-words representation is the best in an abstract environment. The cosine measure has relatively consistent and robust performance. A direct weighting method, IDF (Inverse Document Frequency), can produce quick and reasonable estimates of the weights. Bag-of-words representation generally outperforms the concept-based representation. Further improvement in performance can be obtained by using the learning-to-rank method to integrate different weighting methods. This study follows up Lu and Mao (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1776-1784, 2015), in which an automated weighted subject indexing method was proposed and validated. The findings from this study contribute to more effective weighted subject indexing.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.121-133

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 39
  • ? 1
  • b 1
  • m 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes