Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.040936273 = product of:
  0.081872545 = sum of:
    0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05488808 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
    0.026984464 = product of:
      0.05396893 = sum of:
        0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05396893 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

26. 2.1997 10:45:53

Source

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

0.03581924 = product of:
  0.07163848 = sum of:
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.03581924 = product of:
  0.07163848 = sum of:
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.023611406 = product of:
      0.04722281 = sum of:
        0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04722281 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

4. 1.2007 10:22:26

0.02744404 = product of:
  0.10977616 = sum of:
    0.10977616 = weight(_text_:26 in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10977616 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.62429106 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of documentation. 26(1970), S.55-67

0.026591148 = product of:
  0.10636459 = sum of:
    0.10636459 = weight(_text_:description in 2159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10636459 = score(doc=2159,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.45945624 = fieldWeight in 2159, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2159)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Crowdsourcing has emerged as a way to harvest social wisdom from thousands of volunteers to perform a series of tasks online. However, little research has been devoted to exploring the impact of various factors such as the content of a resource or crowdsourcing interface design on user tagging behavior. Although images' titles and descriptions are frequently available in image digital libraries, it is not clear whether they should be displayed to crowdworkers engaged in tagging. This paper focuses on offering insight to the curators of digital image libraries who face this dilemma by examining (i) how descriptions influence the user in his/her tagging behavior and (ii) how this relates to the (a) nature of the tags, (b) the emergent folksonomy, and (c) the findability of the images in the tagging system. We compared two different methods for collecting image tags from Amazon's Mechanical Turk's crowdworkers-with and without image descriptions. Several properties of generated tags were examined from different perspectives: diversity, specificity, reusability, quality, similarity, descriptiveness, and so on. In addition, the study was carried out to examine the impact of image description on supporting users' information seeking with a tag cloud interface. The results showed that the properties of tags are affected by the crowdsourcing approach. Tags from the "with description" condition are more diverse and more specific than tags from the "without description" condition, while the latter has a higher tag reuse rate. A user study also revealed that different tag sets provided different support for search. Tags produced "with description" shortened the path to the target results, whereas tags produced without description increased user success in the search task.

0.025052518 = product of:
  0.050105035 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.

Date

26. 8.2012 14:29:37

0.020810865 = product of:
  0.08324346 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers the interindexer consistency between indexers working in various organisations and reports on the result of an empirical study. The interindexer consistency was low, but there were clear differences depending on whether the consistency was calculated on the basis to terms or concepts or aspects. The fact that the consistency figures remained low can be explained. The low indexing consistency caused by indexing errors also seems to be difficult to control. Indexing consistency and its control have a clear impact on how feasible and useful centralised services and union catalogues are and can be from the point of view of subject description.

0.017837884 = product of:
  0.071351536 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations

0.016332638 = product of:
  0.06533055 = sum of:
    0.06533055 = sum of:
      0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031599965 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
      0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03373058 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.014864903 = product of:
  0.05945961 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An important stage in the process or retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objects; this operation is often undertaken manually, just as index terms are often manually assigned to documents in a conventional retrieval system. In an earlier article (1994), the results were published of a study in which several different sets of links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full-text documents. These results showed little similarity between the link-sets, a finding that was comparable with those of studies of inter-indexer consistency, which suggest that there is generally only a low level of agreement between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by different indexers. In this article, a description is provided of an investigation into the nature of the relationship existing between (i) the levels of inter-linker consistency obtaining among the group of hypertext databases used in our earlier experiments, and (ii) the levels of effectiveness of a number of searches carried out in those databases. An account is given of the implementation of the searches and of the methods used in the calculation of numerical values expressing their effectiveness. Analysis of the results of a comparison between recorded levels of consistency and those of effectiveness does not allow us to draw conclusions about the consistency - effectiveness relationship that are equivalent to those drawn in comparable studies of inter-indexer consistency

0.012006768 = product of:
  0.048027072 = sum of:
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=4526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, 26.-29.10.92. Ed.: D. Shaw

0.012006768 = product of:
  0.048027072 = sum of:
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=3516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Documentaliste. 26(1989) no.4/5, S.181-187

0.011172275 = product of:
  0.0446891 = sum of:
    0.0446891 = product of:
      0.0893782 = sum of:
        0.0893782 = weight(_text_:access in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0893782 = score(doc=2271,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.5295981 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For truly effective subject access, it is essential that books on any given topic be brought together consistently under the same subject heading. With the advent of online catalogs, this goal has assumed new importance but has also become easier to achieve

0.011059988 = product of:
  0.044239953 = sum of:
    0.044239953 = product of:
      0.08847991 = sum of:
        0.08847991 = weight(_text_:access in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08847991 = score(doc=2843,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.5242754 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A random sample of 50 nursing articles indexed in both MEDLINE and CINAHL during 1986 was used for comparing indexing pratices. Indexing was analysed by counting the number of major descriptors, the number of major and minor descriptors, the number of indexing access points, the number of common indexing access points, and the number and type of unique indexing points. The study results indicate: there are few differences in the number of major descriptors used, MEDLINE uses almost twice as many descriptors, MEDLINE has almost twice as many indexing access points, and MEDLINE and CINAHL provide few common access points.

0.010291515 = product of:
  0.04116606 = sum of:
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=5262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study was based on the collection examnined by W.H. Shaw (Inf. proc. man. 26(1990) no.6, S.693-703, 705-718), a test collection of 1239 articles, indexed with the term cystic fibrosis; and 100 queries with 3 sets of relevance evaluations from subject experts. The effect of variations in indexing exhaustivity on retrieval performance in a vector space retrieval system was investigated by using a term weight threshold to construct different document representations for a test collection. Retrieval results showed that retrieval performance, as measured by the mean optimal measure for all queries at a term weight threshold, was highest at the most exhaustive representation, and decreased slightly as terms were eliminated and the indexing representation became less exhaustive. The findings suggest that the vector space model is more robust against variations in indexing exhaustivity that is the single-link clustering model

0.010234068 = product of:
  0.020468136 = sum of:
    0.01372202 = weight(_text_:26 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01372202 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.07803638 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.006746116 = product of:
      0.013492232 = sum of:
        0.013492232 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013492232 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

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.

0.010119174 = product of:
  0.040476695 = sum of:
    0.040476695 = product of:
      0.08095339 = sum of:
        0.08095339 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08095339 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

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

0.008576263 = product of:
  0.03430505 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 26(1990) no.4, S.549-558

0.0067033647 = product of:
  0.026813459 = sum of:
    0.026813459 = product of:
      0.053626917 = sum of:
        0.053626917 = weight(_text_:access in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053626917 = score(doc=2655,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Five controlled vocabularies currently used for content representation in collections of non art moving images were examined to determine their level of conceptual compatibility. Methods borrowed from previous research in the area of indexing language compatibility were used. Quantitative data and qualitative observations allowed us to estimate more precisely and realistically the actual degree of conceptual redundancy in these indexing languages. It was found that the conceptual overlap is high enough to justify the pursuit of research and development work an a common basic indexing and access language that could be used to name objects, events, categories of persons, and relations most frequently depicted in non art moving image collections.

0.006319993 = product of:
  0.025279973 = sum of:
    0.025279973 = product of:
      0.050559945 = sum of:
        0.050559945 = weight(_text_:access in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050559945 = score(doc=4778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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