Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

0.0766242 = product of:
  0.3064968 = sum of:
    0.3064968 = weight(_text_:graphic in 5141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3064968 = score(doc=5141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29924196 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191016 = queryNorm
        1.0242441 = fieldWeight in 5141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5141)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.04378526 = product of:
  0.17514104 = sum of:
    0.17514104 = weight(_text_:graphic in 4892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17514104 = score(doc=4892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29924196 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191016 = queryNorm
        0.5852823 = fieldWeight in 4892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4892)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Explores the strengths and limitations of hypertext for the online presentation of thesauri used in information retrieval. Examines the ability of hypertext to support each of 3 common types of thesaurus display: graphic, alphabetical, and hierarchical. Presents a design for a hypertext-based hierarchical display that addresses many inadequacies of printed hierarchical displays. Ullustrates how the design might be implemented using a commercially available hypertext system. Considers issues related to the implementation and evaluation of hypertext-based thesauri

0.0383121 = product of:
  0.1532484 = sum of:
    0.1532484 = weight(_text_:graphic in 4030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1532484 = score(doc=4030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29924196 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191016 = queryNorm
        0.51212204 = fieldWeight in 4030, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4030)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes a design for ideal online subject and author thesauri. The subject thesaurus is a graphic thesaurus with a semantic network, so the spread activation assumption can be applied. The hierarchical relationship is broken into 3 specific relations, so automated inheritance can be performed. The associated relationship is separated with several specific relationships, so spatial recognition can function well. This thesaurus will provide variety and complexity to deal with uncertainty and will be a user constructed, user enhanced hyperthesaurus that serves as an analogue of the human mind. The author thesaurus is designed to show all authors which are alphabetically adjacent to a given author as well as other authors whose subject area is close to that of the given author

0.024838142 = product of:
  0.09935257 = sum of:
    0.09935257 = sum of:
      0.056493253 = weight(_text_:methods in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056493253 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.31093797 = fieldWeight in 5006, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5006)
      0.042859312 = weight(_text_:22 in 5006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042859312 = score(doc=5006,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5006, 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=5006)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this selected bibliography is to introduce issues and problems in relation to thesaurus construction and to present a set of readings that may be used in practical thesaurus design. The concept of thesaurus is discussed, the purpose of the thesaurus and how the concept has evolved over the years according to new IR technologies. Different approaches to thesaurus construction are introduced, and readings dealing with specific problems and developments in the collection, formation and organisation of thesaurus concepts and terms are presented. Primarily manual construction methods are discussed, but the bibliography also refers to research about techniques for automatic thesaurus construction.

Date

18. 5.2006 20:06:22

0.02189263 = product of:
  0.08757052 = sum of:
    0.08757052 = weight(_text_:graphic in 4648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08757052 = score(doc=4648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29924196 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045191016 = queryNorm
        0.29264116 = fieldWeight in 4648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4648)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Enthält 47 Beiträge den Schwerpunkten der Tagung: Biology and related fields - Engineering and natural sciences - Medicine - Information science and information technology - Law and economics - Social sciences and humanities - Terminology research and interdisciplinary aspects; darunter: OESER, E. u. G. BUDIN: Explication and representation of qualitative biological and medical concepts: the example of the pocket knowledge data base on carnivores; HOHENEGGER, J.: Specles as the basic units in taxonomy and nomenclature; LAVIETER, L. de, J.A. DESCHAMPS u. B. FELLUGA: A multilingual environmental thesaurus: past, present, and future; TODESCHINI, C. u. G. Thoemig: The thesaurus of the International Nuclear Information System: experiences in an international environment; CITKINA, F.: Terminology of mathematics: contrastive analysis as a basis for standardization and harmonization; WALKER, D.G.: Technology and engineering terminolgy: translation problems encountered and suggested solutions; VERVOOM, A.J.: Terminology and engineering sciences; HIRS, W.M.: ICD-10, a missed chance and a new opportunity for medical terminology standardization; THOMAS, P.: Subject indexes in medical literature; RAHMSTORF, G.: Analysis of information technology terms; NEGRINI, G.: Indexing language for research projects and its graphic display; BATEWICZ, M.: Impact of modern information technology on knowledge transfer services and terminology; RATZINGER, M.: Multilingual product description (MPD): a European project; OHLY, H.P.: Terminology of the social sciences and social context approaches; BEAUGRANDE, R. de: Terminology and discourse between the social sciences and the humanities; MUSKENS, G.: Terminological standardisation and socio-linguistic diversity: dilemmas of crosscultural sociology; SNELL, B.: Terminology ten years on; ZHURAVLEV, V.F.: Standard ontological structures of systems of concepts of active knowledge; WRIGHT, S.E.: Terminology standardization in standards societies and professional associations in the United States; DAHLBERG; I.: The terminology of subject fields - reconsidered; AHMAD, K. u. H. Fulford: Terminology of interdisciplinary fields: a new perspective; DATAA, J.: Full-text databases as a terminological support for translation

0.021289835 = product of:
  0.08515934 = sum of:
    0.08515934 = sum of:
      0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048422787 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
      0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03673655 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Indexing consists of both novel and more traditional techniques. Cutting-edge indexing techniques, such as automatic indexing, ontologies, and topic maps, were developed independently of older techniques such as thesauri, but it is now recognized that these older methods also hold expertise. Indexing describes various traditional and novel indexing techniques, giving information professionals and students of library and information sciences a broad and comprehensible introduction to indexing. This title consists of twelve chapters: an Introduction to subject readings and theasauri; Automatic indexing versus manual indexing; Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material; Automatic indexing of images; The black art of indexing moving images; Automatic indexing of music; Taxonomies and ontologies; Metadata formats and indexing; Tagging; Topic maps; Indexing the web; and The Semantic Web.

Date

24. 8.2016 14:03:22

0.012419071 = product of:
  0.049676284 = sum of:
    0.049676284 = sum of:
      0.028246626 = weight(_text_:methods in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028246626 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.15546899 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.021429656 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021429656 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045191016 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

0.010714828 = product of:
  0.042859312 = sum of:
    0.042859312 = product of:
      0.085718624 = sum of:
        0.085718624 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085718624 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Parlaments- und Behördenbibliotheken. 1989, H.67, S.1-22

0.010483841 = product of:
  0.041935366 = sum of:
    0.041935366 = product of:
      0.08387073 = sum of:
        0.08387073 = weight(_text_:methods in 4423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08387073 = score(doc=4423,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.4616232 = fieldWeight in 4423, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper introduces bibliometrics to the research area of knowledge organization - more precisely in relation to construction and maintenance of thesauri. As such, the paper reviews related work that has been of inspiration for the assembly of a semi-automatic, bibliometric-based, approach for construction and maintenance. Similarly, the paper discusses the methodical considerations behind the approach. Eventually, the semi-automatic approach is used to verify the applicability of bibliometric methods as a supplement to construction and maintenance of thesauri. In the context of knowledge organization, the paper outlines two fundamental approaches to knowledge organization, that is, the manual intellectual approach and the automatic algorithmic approach. Bibliometric methods belong to the automatic algorithmic approach, though bibliometrics do have special characteristics that are substantially different from other methods within this approach.

0.010483841 = product of:
  0.041935366 = sum of:
    0.041935366 = product of:
      0.08387073 = sum of:
        0.08387073 = weight(_text_:methods in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08387073 = score(doc=4477,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.4616232 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Design and construction of indexing languages require thorough knowledge and understanding of the information environment. This empirical study investigated a mixed set of methods (group interviews, recollection of information needs and word association tests to collect data; content analysis and discourse analysis to analyse data) to evaluate whether these methods collected the data needed for work domain oriented thesaurus design. The findings showed that the study methods together provided the domain knowledge needed to define the role of the thesaurus and design its content and structure. The study was carried out from a person-insituation perspective. The findings reflected the information environment and made it possible to develop a thesaurus according to the characteristics of the work domain. It seemed more difficult to capture the needs of the individual user and adapt the thesaurus to individual characteristics.

0.009986691 = product of:
  0.039946765 = sum of:
    0.039946765 = product of:
      0.07989353 = sum of:
        0.07989353 = weight(_text_:methods in 1528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07989353 = score(doc=1528,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.43973273 = fieldWeight in 1528, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Statistical methods for automated document indexing are becoming an alternative to the manual assignment of keywords. We argue that the quality of the thesaurus used as a basis for indexing in regard to its ability to adequately cover the contents to be indexed and as a basis for the specific indexing method used is of crucial importance in automatic indexing. We present an interactive tool for thesaurus evaluation that is based on a combination of statistical measures and appropriate visualisation techniques that supports the detection of potential problems in a thesaurus. We describe the methods used and show that the tool supports the detection and correction of errors, leading to a better indexing result.

0.009184138 = product of:
  0.03673655 = sum of:
    0.03673655 = product of:
      0.0734731 = sum of:
        0.0734731 = weight(_text_:22 in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0734731 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4483, 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=4483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

15. 3.2000 10:22:37

0.009184138 = product of:
  0.03673655 = sum of:
    0.03673655 = product of:
      0.0734731 = sum of:
        0.0734731 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0734731 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.009184138 = product of:
  0.03673655 = sum of:
    0.03673655 = product of:
      0.0734731 = sum of:
        0.0734731 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0734731 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.009184138 = product of:
  0.03673655 = sum of:
    0.03673655 = product of:
      0.0734731 = sum of:
        0.0734731 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0734731 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, 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=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.0085600205 = product of:
  0.034240082 = sum of:
    0.034240082 = product of:
      0.068480164 = sum of:
        0.068480164 = weight(_text_:methods in 2732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068480164 = score(doc=2732,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 2732, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper evaluates and compares three thesaurus construction methodologies: literary scanning, word association tests, and involvement of subject expert groups. The evaluation concentrates an exploring advantages in relation to the sub-processes: collection, formation and structuring of concepts and terms. Quantitative as well as qualitative analyses have been carried out. The analysis Shows that the methods are complementary each providing distinct conceptual information from respectively a domain-oriented and a scientific viewpoint. The combination of methods provides a thesaurus, at the same time, mapping authoritative language and reflecting the diversity of language.

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 2112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=2112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 2112, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A metathesaurus is a set made of a reference thesaurus and various forms of indexing languages attached to it. Among these, the sub-thesauri cover restricted fields in more detail. A functional definition of the sub-thesaurus is proposed: elements, relationships, sub-systems and rules to be respected to preserve the possibilities for communication via the reference thesaurus. Considerations on the methods of presentation, the use and the compilation are also given

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 8200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=8200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 8200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the background to and the process of thesaurus construction in an interdisciplinary soft science subject, environmental protection, for a specific government organization, the Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia. Discusses and recommends methods of construction and develops a decision making checklists to aid in managing the task. Concentrates on the difficulties of creating a thesaurus in the real world compared to textual advice on thesaurus construction

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 1170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=1170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 1170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Analyzes and discusses general problems of thesaurus construction theory and practice, based on research and experience accumulate in librarianship and information science as well as some other sciences and general scientific methods (e.g. linguistics, and systems analysis). Recommends methodological and methodical ways of solving problems existing in thesaurus construction

0.008070464 = product of:
  0.032281857 = sum of:
    0.032281857 = product of:
      0.064563714 = sum of:
        0.064563714 = weight(_text_:methods in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064563714 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045191016 = queryNorm
            0.35535768 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)