-
Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996)
0.04
0.04124427 = product of:
0.08248854 = sum of:
0.08248854 = sum of:
0.03290883 = weight(_text_:research in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03290883 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
0.04957971 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04957971 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
-
Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014)
0.04
0.04119421 = product of:
0.08238842 = sum of:
0.08238842 = sum of:
0.03989153 = weight(_text_:research in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03989153 = score(doc=1428,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042496894 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.
- Source
- Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
-
Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003)
0.03
0.030451283 = product of:
0.060902566 = sum of:
0.060902566 = sum of:
0.0325713 = weight(_text_:research in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0325713 = score(doc=2763,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.028331263 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028331263 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
- Date
- 12. 9.2004 17:22:35
-
Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004)
0.03
0.029460195 = product of:
0.05892039 = sum of:
0.05892039 = sum of:
0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023506312 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03541408 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.
- Pages
- S.19-22
-
Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014)
0.03
0.029460195 = product of:
0.05892039 = sum of:
0.05892039 = sum of:
0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023506312 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03541408 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.
- Date
- 8. 4.2015 16:22:13
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999)
0.02
0.021248447 = product of:
0.042496894 = sum of:
0.042496894 = product of:
0.08499379 = sum of:
0.08499379 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499379 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, 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=6404)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999)
0.02
0.021248447 = product of:
0.042496894 = sum of:
0.042496894 = product of:
0.08499379 = sum of:
0.08499379 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499379 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, 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=3773)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017)
0.02
0.021248447 = product of:
0.042496894 = sum of:
0.042496894 = product of:
0.08499379 = sum of:
0.08499379 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499379 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, 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=3176)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 5.2017 18:46:22
-
Srivastava, A.P.: Theory of knowledge classification in libraries (1964)
0.02
0.016454415 = product of:
0.03290883 = sum of:
0.03290883 = product of:
0.06581766 = sum of:
0.06581766 = weight(_text_:research in 6250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06581766 = score(doc=6250,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 6250, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6250)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 27(1966) no.2, S.142 (D.J. Foskett)
-
¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval : Memorandum of the Classification Research Group (1997)
0.02
0.01628565 = product of:
0.0325713 = sum of:
0.0325713 = product of:
0.0651426 = sum of:
0.0651426 = weight(_text_:research in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0651426 = score(doc=562,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.43677214 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist
-
Mai, J.-E.: Classification in context : Relativity, reality, and representation (2004)
0.02
0.01628565 = product of:
0.0325713 = sum of:
0.0325713 = product of:
0.0651426 = sum of:
0.0651426 = weight(_text_:research in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0651426 = score(doc=3017,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.43677214 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper surveys classification research literature, discusses various classification theories, and shows that the focus has traditionally been an establishing a scientific foundation for classification research. This paper argues that a shift has taken place, and suggests that contemporary classification research focus an contextual information as the guide for the design and construction of classification schemes.
-
Quinlan, E.; Rafferty, P.: Astronomy classification : towards a faceted classification scheme (2019)
0.01
0.014394616 = product of:
0.028789232 = sum of:
0.028789232 = product of:
0.057578463 = sum of:
0.057578463 = weight(_text_:research in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057578463 = score(doc=5313,freq=12.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.38605565 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Astronomy classification is often overlooked in classification discourse. Its rarity and obscurity, especially within UK librarianship, suggests it is an underdeveloped strand of classification research and is possibly undervalued in modern librarianship. The purpose of this research is to investigate the suitability and practicalities of the discipline of astronomy adopting a subject-specific faceted classification scheme and to provide a provi-sional outline of a special faceted astronomy classification scheme. The research demonstrates that the application of universal schemes for astronomy classification had left the interdisciplinary subject ill catered for and outdated, making accurate classification difficult for specialist astronomy collections. A faceted approach to classification development is supported by two qualitative literature-based research methods: historical research into astronomy classification and an analytico-synthetic classification case study. The subsequent classification development is influenced through a pragmatic and scholarly-scientific approach and constructed by means of instruction from faceted classification guides by Vickery (1960) and Batley (2005), and faceted classification principles from Ranaganathan (1937). This research fills a gap within classification discourse on specialist interdisciplinary subjects, specifically within astronomy and demonstrates the best means for their classification. It provides a means of assessing further the value of faceted classification within astronomy librarianship.
-
Olson, H.A.: Cultural discourse of classification : indigeous alternatives to the tradition of Aristotle, Durkheim, and Foucault (2001)
0.01
0.014249943 = product of:
0.028499886 = sum of:
0.028499886 = product of:
0.056999773 = sum of:
0.056999773 = weight(_text_:research in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056999773 = score(doc=1594,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.38217562 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The paper explores the cultural construction of classification by identifying fundamental characteristics of classification and examining how these fit with other cultures. Foucault's method of discourse analysis is applied to selected texts an classification in two areas. The first area is classification originated in the dominant Western culture. The second area is classifications from indigenous cultures. It is concluded that classification research needs to have an increasing awareness of the cultural construction of classification schemes and to work with alternatives to approaches of fundamental universal principles of classification.
- Source
- Advances in classification research, vol.10: proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop. Ed.: Albrechtsen, H. u. J.E. Mai
-
Integrative level classification: Research project (2004-)
0.01
0.014249943 = product of:
0.028499886 = sum of:
0.028499886 = product of:
0.056999773 = sum of:
0.056999773 = weight(_text_:research in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056999773 = score(doc=1151,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.38217562 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Integrative level classification (ILC) is a research project being developed since 2004 by some members of the Italian chapter of ISKO, also involving cooperation with other researchers. Anyone interested is welcome to contact us at: ilc@mate.unipv.it. Aim of the project is to test application of the theory of integrative levels to knowledge organization (KO). This implies a naturalistic-ontological approach to KO, which is obviously not the only possible approach - actually it even looks to be unfashionable nowadays, although it agrees with current trends towards interdisciplinarity and interrelation between many research fields.
-
Ullah, A.; Khusro, S.; Ullah, I.: Bibliographic classification in the digital age : current trends & future directions (2017)
0.01
0.014249943 = product of:
0.028499886 = sum of:
0.028499886 = product of:
0.056999773 = sum of:
0.056999773 = weight(_text_:research in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056999773 = score(doc=5717,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.38217562 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Bibliographic classification is among the core activities of Library & Information Science that brings order and proper management to the holdings of a library. Compared to printed media, digital collections present numerous challenges regarding their preservation, curation, organization and resource discovery & access. Therefore, true native perspective is needed to be adopted for bibliographic classification in digital environments. In this research article, we have investigated and reported different approaches to bibliographic classification of digital collections. The article also contributes two evaluation frameworks that evaluate the existing classification schemes and systems. The article presents a bird's-eye view for researchers in reaching a generalized and holistic approach towards bibliographic classification research, where new research avenues have been identified.
-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.01
0.0141656315 = product of:
0.028331263 = sum of:
0.028331263 = product of:
0.056662526 = sum of:
0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056662526 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
-
Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997)
0.01
0.0141656315 = product of:
0.028331263 = sum of:
0.028331263 = product of:
0.056662526 = sum of:
0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056662526 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
-
Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006)
0.01
0.0141656315 = product of:
0.028331263 = sum of:
0.028331263 = product of:
0.056662526 = sum of:
0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056662526 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 27. 5.2007 22:19:35
-
Lorenz, B.: Zur Theorie und Terminologie der bibliothekarischen Klassifikation (2018)
0.01
0.0141656315 = product of:
0.028331263 = sum of:
0.028331263 = product of:
0.056662526 = sum of:
0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056662526 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Pages
- S.1-22
-
Austin, D.: Basic concept classes and primitive relations (1982)
0.01
0.014103786 = product of:
0.028207572 = sum of:
0.028207572 = product of:
0.056415144 = sum of:
0.056415144 = weight(_text_:research in 6580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056415144 = score(doc=6580,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.05227703 = queryNorm
0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 6580, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6580)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
