Search (112 results, page 1 of 6)

0.02129588 = product of:
  0.06388764 = sum of:
    0.06388764 = sum of:
      0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016401293 = score(doc=3734,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 3734, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3734)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=3734,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3734, 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=3734)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Most indexed databases now include their thesauri and/or coding in their bibliographic files, searchable at the databases' online connect rates. Assesses the searchability of these on the different hosts. Thesauri and classifications are also available as diskette or CD-ROM products. Describes a number of these, highlighting the diskette thesaurus from IFI/Plenum Data for its flexible databases, the CLAIMS Uniterm and Comprehensive indexes to US chemical patents

Source

Searcher. 3(1995) no.8, S.18-22

0.019373938 = product of:
  0.058121815 = sum of:
    0.058121815 = sum of:
      0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 7238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01657126 = score(doc=7238,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 7238, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7238)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 7238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=7238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7238, 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=7238)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Subject access in library OPACs might be improved for some users by taking advantage of all of the hierarchical relationships which are indicated on existing LCSH entries. Recommends that cross references pointing to broader terms be displayed, in addition to those for narrower and related terms to which users have traditionally benn directed. Traces the old practice back to Charles Cutter, reports on deliberations of the ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee nearly 120 years later. Discusses practical concerns related to implementing the change, including the accuracy of hierarchical relationships in the LCSH system and possible techniques for using the MARC format to generate the cross references

Date

22. 4.1997 20:43:23

0.018567387 = product of:
  0.055702157 = sum of:
    0.055702157 = sum of:
      0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020087399 = score(doc=3837,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LSCH), which celebrated its 100th birthday in 1998, is the largest cataloging and indexing language in the world for the indication of the topics and formats of books and similar publications. It consists of a controlled list of main headings, many with subdivisions, with a rich system of cross references. It is supported by the U.S. government, and undergoes systematic revision. In recent decades its managers have begun to confront challenges such as biased terminology, complicated syntax (how terms are put together to form headings), and effective displays in electronic media. Many suggestions have been made for its improvement, including moving to a fully faceted system.

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:13

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.018134935 = product of:
  0.054404803 = sum of:
    0.054404803 = sum of:
      0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018790042 = score(doc=5920,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), a system originally designed as a tool for subject access to the Library's own collection in the late nineteenth century, has become, in the course of the last century, the main subject retrieval tool in library catalogs throughout the United States and in many other countries. It is one of the largest non-specialized controlled vocabularies in the world. As LCSH enters a new century, it faces an information environment that has undergone vast changes from what had prevailed when LCSH began, or, indeed, from its state in the early days of the online age. In order to continue its mission and to be useful in spheres outside library catalogs as well, LCSH must adapt to the multifarious environment. One possible approach is to adopt a series of scalable and flexible syntax and application rules to meet the needs of different user communities

Date

27. 5.2001 16:22:21

Source

The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T.Stone

0.018134935 = product of:
  0.054404803 = sum of:
    0.054404803 = sum of:
      0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018790042 = score(doc=131,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

After a fundamental examination of the phenomenon of time, this paper presents the history, authority, and structure of period subdivisions and chronological terms in the three subject heading languages LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), RAMEAU (Répertoire d'Autorité Matière Encyclopédique et Alphabétique Unifié), and RSWK (Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog). Their usefulness in online searching is demonstrated using the online catalogs of the Library of Congress, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and the Deutsche Bibliothek and is compared to the search options in selected digital encyclopedias (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie). The author develops a model for common time retrieval across all three online catalogs, outlines the conditions for that model (time period code, chronological code, and chronology authority file), and proposes a search interface.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.016131433 = product of:
  0.048394296 = sum of:
    0.048394296 = sum of:
      0.01871533 = weight(_text_:of in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01871533 = score(doc=2337,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2337, 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=2337)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Despite early claims to the contemporary, thesauri continue to find use as access tools for information in the full-text environment. Their mode of use is changing, but this change actually represents an expansion rather than a contrdiction of their utility. Thesauri and similar vocabulary tools can complement full-text access by aiding users in focusing their searches, by supplementing the linguistic analysis of the text search engine, and even by serving as one of the tools used by the linguistic engine for its analysis. While human indexing contunues to be used for many databases, the trend is to increase the use of machine aids for this purpose. All machine-aided indexing (MAI) systems rely on thesauri as the basis for term selection. In the 21st century, the balance of effort between human and machine will change at both input and output, but thesauri will continue to play an important role for the foreseeable future

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.0059357933 = product of:
  0.01780738 = sum of:
    0.01780738 = product of:
      0.03561476 = sum of:
        0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 3728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03561476 = score(doc=3728,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3728, 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=3728)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.005293495 = product of:
  0.015880484 = sum of:
    0.015880484 = product of:
      0.03176097 = sum of:
        0.03176097 = weight(_text_:of in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03176097 = score(doc=5277,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46359703 = fieldWeight in 5277, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Imprint

London : University of London

0.0051254043 = product of:
  0.015376212 = sum of:
    0.015376212 = product of:
      0.030752424 = sum of:
        0.030752424 = weight(_text_:of in 4307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030752424 = score(doc=4307,freq=54.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.44887587 = fieldWeight in 4307, product of:
              7.3484693 = tf(freq=54.0), with freq of:
                54.0 = termFreq=54.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4307)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The construction and updating of indexing languages depend on the organization of their hierarchical structures in order to determine the classification of related terms and, above all, to allow a constant updating of vocabulary, a condition for knowledge evolution. The elaboration of an indexing language for online catalogs of libraries' networks is important considering the diversity and specificity of knowledge areas. From this perspective, the present paper reports on the work of a team of catalogers and researchers engaged in the construction of a hierarchical structure of an indexing language for an online catalog of a university library's network. The work on hierarchical structures began by defining the categories and subcategories that form the indexing language macrostructure by using the parameters of the Library of Congress Subject Headings , the National Library Terminology and the Vocabulary of the University of São Paulo Library's system. Throughout the stages of the elaboration process of the macrostructure, difficulties and improvements were observed and discussed. The results enabled the assessment of the hierarchical structures of the languages used in the organization of the superordinate and subordinate terms, which has contributed to the systematization of operational procedures contained in an indexing language manual for online catalogs of libraries.

0.0049464945 = product of:
  0.014839483 = sum of:
    0.014839483 = product of:
      0.029678967 = sum of:
        0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029678967 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 374, 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=374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

24. 9.2021 12:22:02

0.00489678 = product of:
  0.01469034 = sum of:
    0.01469034 = product of:
      0.02938068 = sum of:
        0.02938068 = weight(_text_:22 in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02938068 = score(doc=4360,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19150631 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

15. 7.2018 16:22:16

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitteilungen VÖB 48(1995) H.1, S.66-68 (K. Niedermair) - Vgl. auch Lepsky, K. in: Bibliotheksdienst 29(1995) H.3, S.500-519; Bibliothek: Forschung u. Praxis 19(1995) H.2, S.251-254 (G. Hartwieg; auch in: LDV-Forum Bd. 12, Nr. 2, Jg. 1995, S.22-29 [unter: http://www.jlcl.org/1995_Heft2/Rezensionen_19-27.pdf]) .

0.0045843013 = product of:
  0.013752903 = sum of:
    0.013752903 = product of:
      0.027505806 = sum of:
        0.027505806 = weight(_text_:of in 2322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027505806 = score(doc=2322,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 2322, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2322)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The introduction of computerized post-coordination has solved many of the problems of pre-coordinated subject access. However, the adoption of computerized post-coordination results in the loss of some pre-coordination benefits. Specifically, the effect of hiding terms within the context of others is lost in post-coodination which give lead status to every document term. This results in spurious matches of terms out of context. Library patrons and Internet searchers are increasingly dissatisfied with subject access performance, in part because of unmanageably large retrieval sets. The need to enhance precision and limit the size of retrieval sets motivates this work which proposes partial coordination, an approach which incorporates the advantages of computer search with the ability of pre-coordination to limit spurious partial matches and thereby enhance precision

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.14, S.1254-1269

0.0045843013 = product of:
  0.013752903 = sum of:
    0.013752903 = product of:
      0.027505806 = sum of:
        0.027505806 = weight(_text_:of in 3431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027505806 = score(doc=3431,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 3431, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

With the current information environment characterized by the proliferation of digital resources, including collaboratively created and shared resources, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is facing the challenges of effective and efficient subject-based organization and retrieval of digital resources. To explore the feasibility of utilizing LCSH in a digital environment, we might need to revisit its basic characteristics. The objectives of our study were to analyze LCSH in both syntactic and relational structures, to discover the structural characteristics of LCSH, and to identify problems and issues for the feasibility of LCSH as an effective subject access tool. This study reports and discusses issues raised by the syntactic and hierarchical structures of LCSH that present challenges to its use in a networked environment. Given the results of this study, we recommend a number of provisional future directions for the development of LCSH towards further becoming a viable system for digital and networked resources.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.677-687

0.0045800544 = product of:
  0.013740162 = sum of:
    0.013740162 = product of:
      0.027480325 = sum of:
        0.027480325 = weight(_text_:of in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027480325 = score(doc=2883,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Optimal retrieval in on-line searching can be achieved through combined use of both natural language and controlled vocabularies. However, there is a large variety of types of controlled vocabulary in data bases and often more than one in a single data base. Optimal use of these vocabularies requires understanding what types of languages are involved, and taking advantage of the particular mix of vocabularies in a given data base. Examples 4 major types of indexing and classification used in data bases and puts these 4 in the context of 3 other approaches to subject access. Discusses how to evaluate a new data base for various forms of subject access.

Source

Online '88. Proceedings of the Online Inc., Conference, New York, 11-12 October 1988

0.0045800544 = product of:
  0.013740162 = sum of:
    0.013740162 = product of:
      0.027480325 = sum of:
        0.027480325 = weight(_text_:of in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027480325 = score(doc=515,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Libraries using the LCSH can increase the effectiveness of their subject access. This can be accomplished through one of four methods for applying an increased number of headings: the addition of subject headings in situations where none have been supplied by LC; the use of pattern secondary headings; the use of major + minor techniques; and the use of minor + major techniques. Each of these methods will provide additional subject access to supplement that produced by the Library of Congress

0.0045800544 = product of:
  0.013740162 = sum of:
    0.013740162 = product of:
      0.027480325 = sum of:
        0.027480325 = weight(_text_:of in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027480325 = score(doc=1163,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper is the result of a request from Library of Congress leadership to assess pre-coordinated versus post-coordinated subject cataloging. It argues that the disadvantages of pre-coordinated subject strings are perennial and continue to hinder progress, while the advantages of post-coordinated subject cataloging have expanded, resulting in new opportunities to serve the needs of catalogers and end users alike. The consequences of retaining pre-coordinated headings will have long-term impacts that heavily out-weigh the short-term challenges of transitioning to new cataloging practices. By implementing post-coordinated, faceted vocabularies, the Library of Congress will be investing in the future of libraries.

Footnote

Beitrag in Themenheft: Implementation of Faceted Vocabularies.

0.0044112457 = product of:
  0.013233736 = sum of:
    0.013233736 = product of:
      0.026467472 = sum of:
        0.026467472 = weight(_text_:of in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026467472 = score(doc=873,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Indexing: the state of our knowledge and the state of our ignorance. Proc. of the 20th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Indexers, New York, 13.5.1988. Ed.: B.H. Weinberg

0.00436691 = product of:
  0.01310073 = sum of:
    0.01310073 = product of:
      0.02620146 = sum of:
        0.02620146 = weight(_text_:of in 207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02620146 = score(doc=207,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 207, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Optimal retrieval in on-line searching can be achieved through combined use of both natural language and controlled vocabularies. However, there is a large variety of types of controlled vocabulary in data bases and often more than one in a single data base. Optimal use of these vocabularies requires understanding what types of languages are involved, and taking advantage of the particular mix of vocabularies in a given data base. Examples 4 major types of indexing and classification used in data bases and puts these 4 in the context of 3 other approaches to subject access. Discusses how to evaluate a new data base for various forms of subject access.

0.00436691 = product of:
  0.01310073 = sum of:
    0.01310073 = product of:
      0.02620146 = sum of:
        0.02620146 = weight(_text_:of in 2775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02620146 = score(doc=2775,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 2775, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Browse searching of online catalogs and electronic indexes is a popular means of retrieving information, but some subject heading lists are so extensive that browsing them can be difficult and time-consuming. This resaerch tested one way of presenting a browse interface to reduce the amount of scanning of subject headings required. It found that a hierarchical presentation of headings reduced the amount of scanning required by more than 50% without any reduction in the effectiveness of the search. Better browsable displays of this sort can improve the efficiency of searching but appear not to alter effectivenenss

0.004267752 = product of:
  0.012803256 = sum of:
    0.012803256 = product of:
      0.025606511 = sum of:
        0.025606511 = weight(_text_:of in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025606511 = score(doc=2230,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 2230, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Experimental evidence suggests that enhancing the subject content of OPAC records can improve retrieval performance. This is based on the use of natural language index terms derived from the table of contents and back-of-the-book index of documents. The research reported here investigates the alternative approach of translating these natural language terms into controlled vocabulary. Subject queries were collected by interview at the catalogue, and indexing of the queries demonstrated the impressive ability of PRECIS, and to a lesser extent LCSH, to represent users' information needs. DDC performed poorly in this respect. The assumption was made that an index language adequately specific to represent users' queries should be adequate to represent document contents. Searches were carried out on three test databases, and both natural language and PRECIS enhancement of MARC records increased the number of relevant documents found, with PRECIS showing the better performance. However, with weak stemming the advantage of PRECIS was lost. Consideration must also be given to the potential advantages of controlled vocabulary, over and above basic retrieval performance measures

Source

Journal of documentation. 48(1992) no.3, S.291-309