Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bulletin des bibliothèques de France. 34(1989) no.1, S.22-47

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=3516,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Report of a study comparing 2 methods of indexing: LEXINET, a computerised system for indexing titles and summaries only; and manual indexing of full texts, using the thesaurus developed by French Electricity (EDF). Both systems were applied to a collection of approximately 2.000 documents on artifical intelligence from the EDF data base. The results were then analysed to compare quantitative performance (number and range of terms) and qualitative performance (ambiguity of terms, specificity, variability, consistency). Overall, neither system proved ideal: LEXINET was deficient as regards lack of accessibility and excessive ambiguity; while the manual system gave rise to an over-wide variation of terms. The ideal system would appear to be a combination of automatic and manual systems, on the evidence produced here.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2840, 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=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Until the 1980s, the handling of documentary information in business was usually split up among 4 unrelated independent departments: the library; archives; secretarial services; and reproduction/printing. The introduction of new technology allows the integration of these operations into a single system; comprising subsystems for: production of internal documents; acquisition and storage of external documents; information retrieval; archive creation and maintenance; and circulation of information between departments, based on local computer networks. In reality, not many businesses are making use of technology available to set up such integrated systems because of the lack of common standards for equipment and software, which makes internal and external communication unreliable. This problem may be resolved in the near future, as a result of discussions now in progress at international level.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 2532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=2532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2532, 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=2532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The current trend of simplifying user access to documents in public libraries in France has led to strong criticism of the traditional use of decimal classification, and growing popularity for classifying by centres of interest. The notion of locating documents 'where the reader expects to find them' does not bear reasoned analysis: this approach depends on the subjective attitudes of the reader, whose preconceptions are unknown. Public libraries serve readers of all types, and therefore the classification used must be based on general objective criteria. Argues for the retension of traditional encyclopedic classifications (UDC or Dewey), which despite their drawbacks, are based on subject structures known to everyone, and allow for updating to accommodate new concepts. Classification can operate with visual labelling systems, to simplify access: this approach provides ready identification of centres of interest without discarding the real advantages of universality.