Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08162819 = product of:
  0.122442275 = sum of:
    0.10184179 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10184179 = score(doc=3565,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this article recording evidence for data values in addition to the values themselves in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is proposed, with the aim of improving the expressiveness and reliability of those records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. Recording the history of changes in data values is also proposed, with the aim of reinforcing recorded evidence. First, evidence that can be recorded is categorized into classes: identifiers of rules or tasks, action descriptions of them, and input and output data of them. Dates of recording values and evidence are an additional class. Then, the relative usefulness of evidence classes and also levels (i.e., the record, data element, or data value level) to which an individual evidence class is applied, is examined. Second, examples that can be viewed as recorded evidence in existing bibliographic records and current cataloging rules are shown. Third, some examples of bibliographic records and descriptive metadata with notes of evidence are demonstrated. Fourth, ways of using recorded evidence are addressed.

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

0.042747788 = product of:
  0.12824336 = sum of:
    0.12824336 = sum of:
      0.073308736 = weight(_text_:searching in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.073308736 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05068286 = queryNorm
          0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
      0.05493462 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05493462 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05068286 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes an experiment comparing the performance of automatic full-text indexing software for personal computers with the human intellectual assignment of indexing terms in each document in a collection. Considers the times required to index the document, to retrieve documents satisfying 5 typical foreseen information needs, and the recall and precision ratios of searching. The software used is QuickFinder facility in WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22

0.040361445 = product of:
  0.060542166 = sum of:
    0.05367534 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05367534 = score(doc=1858,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.27203473 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.0068668276 = product of:
      0.013733655 = sum of:
        0.013733655 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013733655 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.
Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.

0.02263151 = product of:
  0.067894526 = sum of:
    0.067894526 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067894526 = score(doc=555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=555)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article discusses indexing practices at the National Agriculture Library. Indexers at NAL scan over 2,200 incoming journals for input into its bibliographic database, AGRICOLA. The National Agriculture Library's coverage extends worldwide covering a broad range of agriculture subjects. Access to AGRICOLA occurs in several ways: onsite search, commercial vendors, Dialog Information Services, Inc. and BRS Information Technologies. The National Agricultural Library uses CAB THESAURUS to describe the subject content of articles in AGRICOLA.

0.015119157 = product of:
  0.04535747 = sum of:
    0.04535747 = product of:
      0.09071494 = sum of:
        0.09071494 = weight(_text_:searching in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09071494 = score(doc=2287,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.44245374 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The depth of indexing, the number of terms assigned on average to each document in a retrieval system as entry points, has a significantly effect on the standard retrieval performance measures in modern commercial retrieval systems, just as it did in previous experimental work. Tests on the effect of basic index search, as opposed to controlled vocabulary search, in these real systems are quite different than traditional comparisons of free text searching with controlled vocabulary searching. In modern commercial systems the controlled vocabulary serves as a precision device, since the strucure of the default for unqualified search terms in these systems requires that it do so.

0.015119157 = product of:
  0.04535747 = sum of:
    0.04535747 = product of:
      0.09071494 = sum of:
        0.09071494 = weight(_text_:searching in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09071494 = score(doc=2289,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.44245374 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The wealth of chemical information on the INSPEC database is easily retrieved using the printed subject indexes to the associated abstract journals. However, this subject indexing is insufficient for machine retrieval, and free-text searching has special difficulties. An easy-to-use retrieval system has been developed which overcomes many problems, especially the retrieval of non-stoichiometric compositions, which are a feature solid-state chemistry. The scheme is limited to inorganic material, but allows flexibility and identification of dopants, interfaces and surfaces or substrates. At the same time, a system has been introduced for the online retrieval of numerical data included in the data base. This has successfully standardized the way in which such data is held for searching, enabling further refinement of searches where numerical information is significant

0.014144694 = product of:
  0.04243408 = sum of:
    0.04243408 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04243408 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Consistency studies have discussed the relationship between indexing consistency and exhaustivity, and it commonly accepted that higher exhaustivity results in lower indexing consistency. However, this issue has been oversimplified, and previous studies contain significant misinterpretations. The aim of this study is investigate the relationship between consistency and exhaustivity based on a large sample and to analyse the misinterpretations in earlier studies. A sample of 3,307 monographs, i.e. 6,614 records was drawn from two Chinese bibliographic catalogues. Indexing consistency was measured using two formulae which were popular in previous indexing consistency studies. A relatively high level of consistency was found (64.21% according to the first formula, 70.71% according to the second). Regarding the relationship between consistency and exhaustivity, it was found that when two indexers had identical exhaustivity, indexing consistency was substantially high. On the contrary, when they had different levels of exhaustivity, consistency was significantly low. It was inevitable with the use of the two formulae. Moreover, a detailed discussion was conducted to analyse the misinterpretations in previous studies.

0.013733655 = product of:
  0.041200966 = sum of:
    0.041200966 = product of:
      0.08240193 = sum of:
        0.08240193 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08240193 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

0.012218123 = product of:
  0.036654368 = sum of:
    0.036654368 = product of:
      0.073308736 = sum of:
        0.073308736 = weight(_text_:searching in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073308736 = score(doc=4778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Online public access catalogues enable users to undertake subject searching by classification schedules, natural language, or controlled language terminology. In practice the 1st method is little used. Controlled language systems require indexers to index specifically and consistently. A comparative survey was made of indexing practices at Amsterdam and Mijmegen university libraries. On average Amsterdam assigned each document 3.5 index terms against 1.8 at Nijmegen. This discrepancy in indexing policy is the result of long-standing practices in each institution. Nijmegen has failed to utilise the advantages offered by online cataloges

0.012218123 = product of:
  0.036654368 = sum of:
    0.036654368 = product of:
      0.073308736 = sum of:
        0.073308736 = weight(_text_:searching in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073308736 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes information system and its various components-index file construstion, query formulation and searching. Discusses an indexing system, and brings out the need for its evaluation. Explains the concept of the efficiency of indexing systems and discusses factors which control this efficiency. Gives criteria for evaluation. Discusses recall and precision ratios, as also noise ratio, novelty ratio, and exhaustivity and specificity and the impact of each on the efficiency of indexing system. Mention also various steps for evaluation.

0.010799399 = product of:
  0.032398194 = sum of:
    0.032398194 = product of:
      0.06479639 = sum of:
        0.06479639 = weight(_text_:searching in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06479639 = score(doc=7151,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.3160384 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases

0.010690859 = product of:
  0.032072574 = sum of:
    0.032072574 = product of:
      0.06414515 = sum of:
        0.06414515 = weight(_text_:searching in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06414515 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Melvil Dewey provided generally applicable classification guidelines or rules with his classification schedules, beginning with the second edition of his scheme. Many cataloging textbooks have adopted these guidelines. Recent editions of the DDC, however, provide considerably changed, quite intricate, and edition-specific rules. The resulting two different sets of classification rules are similar in theory but very different in application. Classifiers must be aware of both sets. They are summarized in two decision charts that are intended to illustrate the differences and similarities between the two sets of rules and to encourage consistent classification decisions. The need is expressed for a parallel, end-user-oriented searching code

0.009163593 = product of:
  0.027490778 = sum of:
    0.027490778 = product of:
      0.054981556 = sum of:
        0.054981556 = weight(_text_:searching in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054981556 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.008011299 = product of:
  0.024033897 = sum of:
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26

0.008011299 = product of:
  0.024033897 = sum of:
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

4. 1.2007 10:22:26

0.007636327 = product of:
  0.02290898 = sum of:
    0.02290898 = product of:
      0.04581796 = sum of:
        0.04581796 = weight(_text_:searching in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04581796 = score(doc=1066,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports 3 explorations of ranked system design. 2 tests used a 'cystic fibrosis' test collection with 100 queries. Experiment 1 compared a Boolean with a ranked interactive system using a subject qualified trained searcher, and reporting recall and precision results. Experiment 2 compared 15 different ranked match algorithms in a batch mode using 2 test collections, and included some new proximate pairs and term weighting approaches. Experiment 3 is a design plan for an interactive ranked prototype offering mid search algorithm choices plus other manual search devices (such as obligatory and unwanted terms), as influenced by thinking aloud comments from experiment 1. Concludes that, in Boolean versus ranked using inverse collection frequency, the searcher inspected more records on ranked than Boolean and so achieved a higher recall but lower precision; however, the presentation order of the relevant records, was, on average, very similar in both systems. Concludes also that: query reformulation was quite strongly practised in ranked searching but does not appear to have been effective; the term pairs proximate weithing methods in experiment 2 enhanced precision on both test collections when used with inverse collection frequency weighting (ICF); and the design plan for an interactive prototype adds to a selection of match algorithms other devices, such as obligatory and unwanted term marking, evidence for this being found from think aloud comments

0.0068668276 = product of:
  0.020600483 = sum of:
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0057223565 = product of:
  0.017167069 = sum of:
    0.017167069 = product of:
      0.034334138 = sum of:
        0.034334138 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034334138 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0057223565 = product of:
  0.017167069 = sum of:
    0.017167069 = product of:
      0.034334138 = sum of:
        0.034334138 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034334138 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.