Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  1. Braam, R.R.; Bruil, J.: Quality of indexing information : authors' views on indexing of their articles in chemical abstracts online CA-file (1992) 0.01
    0.011090445 = product of:
      0.04436178 = sum of:
        0.04436178 = product of:
          0.08872356 = sum of:
            0.08872356 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08872356 = score(doc=2638,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.42373765 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations
  2. Iivonen, M.: ¬The impact of the indexing environment on interindexer consistency (1990) 0.01
    0.010456172 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = product of:
          0.083649375 = sum of:
            0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.083649375 = score(doc=4779,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 4779, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4779)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The interindexer consistency between indexers working in 10 libraries was considered. The indexing environment is described with the help of organisational theory. Interindexer consistency was low, but there were clear differences depending on whether consistency was calculated on the basis of terms or concepts or aspects. Discusses the indexing environment's connections to interindexer consistency
  3. Iivonen, M.: Interindexer consistency and the indexing environment (1990) 0.01
    0.009149151 = product of:
      0.036596604 = sum of:
        0.036596604 = product of:
          0.07319321 = sum of:
            0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07319321 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Considers the interindexer consistency between indexers working in various organisations and reports on the result of an empirical study. The interindexer consistency was low, but there were clear differences depending on whether the consistency was calculated on the basis to terms or concepts or aspects. The fact that the consistency figures remained low can be explained. The low indexing consistency caused by indexing errors also seems to be difficult to control. Indexing consistency and its control have a clear impact on how feasible and useful centralised services and union catalogues are and can be from the point of view of subject description.
  4. Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996) 0.01
    0.006276408 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = product of:
          0.050211266 = sum of:
            0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050211266 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
  5. Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990) 0.01
    0.005491857 = product of:
      0.021967428 = sum of:
        0.021967428 = product of:
          0.043934856 = sum of:
            0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043934856 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26