-
Jensen, P.E.: Three methods of teaching basic subject cataloging (1985)
0.04
0.04230985 = product of:
0.105774626 = sum of:
0.04414041 = weight(_text_:study in 1739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04414041 = score(doc=1739,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.3048192 = fieldWeight in 1739, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1739)
0.061634213 = product of:
0.123268425 = sum of:
0.123268425 = weight(_text_:teaching in 1739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.123268425 = score(doc=1739,freq=4.0), product of:
0.24199244 = queryWeight, product of:
5.433489 = idf(docFreq=524, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.5093896 = fieldWeight in 1739, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.433489 = idf(docFreq=524, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1739)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of three methods of instruction in the teaching of basic subject cataloging. Following the administration of a pretest, the sample population was assigned randomly to one of three modes of instruction. Upon completion of the instruction the students completed a posttest which measured overall achievement as well as achievement on factual knowledge and ability to solve problems. A retest was administered two weeks later. A one-way analysis of covariance was used to analyze the data from each test. The analyses determined that microcomputer programmed instruction differed significantly from television lecture and printed text in terms of each of the three scores. None of the instructional modes was significantly different in terms of retention. The findings of this study have implications for instructional programs and strategies designed to teach graduate library science students as well as implications for future instructional effectiveness research
-
Miller, J.: From subject headings for audiovisual media (1988)
0.02
0.024897177 = product of:
0.06224294 = sum of:
0.04414041 = weight(_text_:study in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04414041 = score(doc=324,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.3048192 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
0.018102532 = product of:
0.036205065 = sum of:
0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036205065 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 324, 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=324)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In subject cataloging of audiovisual materials generic terms like 'documentary' or 'absolute film' facilitate the work of users and librarians. On the concrete level the study shows 4 ways to make a list of generic terms for the application in general libraries. The heuristic function of the study is to offer methods towards the solution of problems in the field of subject cataloguing of non-book materials. (1) The formal subject heading in library science corresponds to generic terms; Anglo-American and German rules for subject cataloging, however, provide no list that is directly applicable. (2) The terminology of institutions administering many audiovisual documents has been examined; general libraries have to find a common denominator with medium depth of classification and balanced representation of fiction and nonfiction terms. (3) From encyclopedic definitions of generic terms 8 dimensions have been extracted characterizing the terms in question individually. (4) The contribution of communication science has been discussed explaining a research project
- Source
- Inspel. 22(1988), S.121-145
-
Kaske, N.K.: ¬A comparative study of subject searching in an OPAC among branch libraries of a university library system (1988)
0.02
0.02301344 = product of:
0.0575336 = sum of:
0.03641398 = weight(_text_:study in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03641398 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.251463 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
0.021119623 = product of:
0.042239245 = sum of:
0.042239245 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042239245 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.
-
Eastman, C.M.: Overlaps in postings to thesaurus terms : a preliminary study (1988)
0.02
0.02301344 = product of:
0.0575336 = sum of:
0.03641398 = weight(_text_:study in 3555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03641398 = score(doc=3555,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.251463 = fieldWeight in 3555, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3555)
0.021119623 = product of:
0.042239245 = sum of:
0.042239245 = weight(_text_:22 in 3555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042239245 = score(doc=3555,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3555, 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=3555)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 25.12.1995 22:52:34
-
Hodges, P.R.: Keyword in title indexes : effectiveness of retrieval in computer searches (1983)
0.02
0.02301344 = product of:
0.0575336 = sum of:
0.03641398 = weight(_text_:study in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03641398 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.251463 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
0.021119623 = product of:
0.042239245 = sum of:
0.042239245 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042239245 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.
- Date
- 14. 3.1996 13:22:21
-
Pettee, J.: ¬The subject approach to books and the development of the dictionary catalog (1985)
0.01
0.013150537 = product of:
0.032876343 = sum of:
0.020807989 = weight(_text_:study in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020807989 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.14369315 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
0.012068355 = product of:
0.02413671 = sum of:
0.02413671 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02413671 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.
- Footnote
- Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.
-
Theory of subject analysis : A sourcebook (1985)
0.01
0.012465659 = product of:
0.031164147 = sum of:
0.013004993 = weight(_text_:study in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013004993 = score(doc=3622,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.08980822 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
0.018159155 = product of:
0.03631831 = sum of:
0.03631831 = weight(_text_:teaching in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631831 = score(doc=3622,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24199244 = queryWeight, product of:
5.433489 = idf(docFreq=524, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.15008034 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.433489 = idf(docFreq=524, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this reader is to assemble in one place those writings considered to have made significant impact an subject analysis. The items selected are considered to contain thoughts and ideas that best illustrate the courses that subject analysis has taken over the years and that shed light an future directions. Most of the writings in this collection have been widely cited and are well known. Many of them were originally published in books that are no longer in print; others appeared in journals that are not easily accessible to many readers. Reprinting these writings in one collection serves two purposes: it makes them readily available for the study and teaching of subject analysis and it shows the genesis and development of some of the most significant ideas in the field.
-
Mooers, C.N.: ¬The indexing language of an information retrieval system (1985)
0.01
0.01150672 = product of:
0.0287668 = sum of:
0.01820699 = weight(_text_:study in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01820699 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.1257315 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.010559811 = product of:
0.021119623 = sum of:
0.021119623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021119623 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Footnote
- Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.
