Search (8 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 2007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093163446 = score(doc=2007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 2007, 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=2007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In their 2005 study, Gross and Taylor found that more than a third of records retrieved by keyword searches would be lost without subject headings. A review of the literature since then shows that numerous studies, in various disciplines, have found that a quarter to a third of records returned in a keyword search would be lost without controlled vocabulary. Other writers, though, have continued to suggest that controlled vocabulary be discontinued. Addressing criticisms of the Gross/Taylor study, this study replicates the search process in the same online catalog, but after the addition of automated enriched metadata such as tables of contents and summaries. The proportion of results that would be lost remains high.

0.01663633 = product of:
  0.03327266 = sum of:
    0.03327266 = product of:
      0.06654532 = sum of:
        0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06654532 = score(doc=3868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This paper reports on an analysis of the loss levels that would result if a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI), were missing the subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by its professional indexers, employing the methodology developed by Gross and Taylor (2005), and later by Gross et al. (2015). The results indicate that AEI users would lose a similar proportion of hits per query to that experienced by library catalog users: on average, 27% of the resources found by a sample of keyword queries on the AEI database would not have been found without the subject indexing, based on the Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors (ATED). The paper also discusses the methodological limitations of these studies, pointing out that real-life users might still find some of the resources missed by a particular query through follow-up searches, while additional resources might also be found through iterative searching on the subject vocabulary. The paper goes on to describe a new research design, based on a before - and - after experiment, which addresses some of these limitations. It is argued that this alternative design will provide a more realistic picture of the value that professionally assigned subject indexing and controlled subject vocabularies can add to literature searching of a more scholarly and thorough kind.

0.01663633 = product of:
  0.03327266 = sum of:
    0.03327266 = product of:
      0.06654532 = sum of:
        0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06654532 = score(doc=4300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This article reports on an investigation of the search value that subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by professional indexers add to a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI). First, a similar methodology to that developed by Gross et al. (2015) was applied, with keyword searches representing a range of educational topics run on the AEI database with and without its subject indexing. The results indicated that AEI users would also lose, on average, about a quarter of hits per query. Second, an alternative research design was applied in which an experienced literature searcher was asked to find resources on a set of educational topics on an AEI database stripped of its subject indexing and then asked to search for additional resources on the same topics after the subject indexing had been reinserted. In this study, the proportion of additional resources that would have been lost had it not been for the subject indexing was again found to be about a quarter of the total resources found for each topic, on average.

0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 7701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=7701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7701, 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=7701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 1.1999 19:22:09

0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4919, 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=4919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2000 17:48:06

0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5937, 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=5937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 6.2001 12:22:31

0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1169, 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=1169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

c't. 2002, H.22, S.190-197

0.010407712 = product of:
  0.020815425 = sum of:
    0.020815425 = product of:
      0.04163085 = sum of:
        0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163085 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, 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=3564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 1.1996 10:22:31