Chartron, G.; Dalbin, S.; Monteil, M.-G.; Verillon, M.: Indexation manuelle et indexation automatique : dépasser les oppositions (1989)
0.01
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.
