Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023290861 = product of:
  0.046581723 = sum of:
    0.046581723 = product of:
      0.093163446 = sum of:
        0.093163446 = weight(_text_:headings in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093163446 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examined the content of back of book indexes produced by 37 authors and 27 nonauthors. The purpose was to see if differences between the two groups of indexers could be discerned by counting the occurrence of characteristics in their indexes. The nonauthors, many or all of whom were probably professional indexers, provided significantly more index pages, modified headings, and modifiers than did the author indexers. The two groups were almost identical in their frequency of cross reference use. The simple counting technique is a feasible method. It should be applied to othe populations of back of book indexes to determine how generalizable are the author/nonauthor differences seen here

0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1427, 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=1427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers whether, when there is a choice, a back-of-book indexer should use a duplicate entry or a see reference. Guidelines suggest that it is preferable to use the duplicate entry if it would not add to the length or complexity of the index. Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries. Failure to select a duplicate entry instead of a see reference occurs most frequently in science and techology books and in indexes with no subheadings