Search (48 results, page 1 of 3)

0.043241408 = product of:
  0.086482815 = sum of:
    0.05559624 = weight(_text_:processing in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05559624 = score(doc=383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.3162615 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
    0.030886576 = product of:
      0.046329863 = sum of:
        0.016645188 = weight(_text_:science in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016645188 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
        0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029684676 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1747-1757

0.024603685 = product of:
  0.04920737 = sum of:
    0.03931248 = weight(_text_:processing in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03931248 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
    0.009894893 = product of:
      0.029684676 = sum of:
        0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029684676 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

23.11.1995 11:29:46

Source

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

0.01389906 = product of:
  0.05559624 = sum of:
    0.05559624 = weight(_text_:processing in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05559624 = score(doc=554,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.3162615 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The development of regional on-line catalogs and in-house information systems for retrieval of references provide examples of the impact of indexing theory and applications on technical processing. More emphasis must be given to understanding the techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of a file, irrespective of whether that file was created as a library catalog or an index to information sources. The most significant advances in classification theory in recent decades has been as a result of efforts to improve effectiveness of indexing systems. Library classification systems are indexing languages or systems. Courses offered for the preparation of indexers in the United States and the United Kingdom are reviewed. A point of congruence for both the indexer and the library classifier would appear to be the need for a thorough preparation in the techniques of subject analysis. Any subject heading list will suffer from omissions as well as the inclusion of terms which the patron will never use. Indexing theory has provided the technical services department with methods for evaluation of effectiveness. The writer does not believe that these techniques are used, nor do current courses, workshops, and continuing education programs stress them. When theory is totally subjugated to practice, critical thinking and maximum effectiveness will suffer.

0.013759367 = product of:
  0.05503747 = sum of:
    0.05503747 = weight(_text_:processing in 2567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05503747 = score(doc=2567,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 2567, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2567)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 40(2004) no.3, S.441-458

0.012283421 = product of:
  0.049133684 = sum of:
    0.049133684 = product of:
      0.073700525 = sum of:
        0.0266323 = weight(_text_:science in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0266323 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
        0.047068227 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047068227 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.011793743 = product of:
  0.04717497 = sum of:
    0.04717497 = weight(_text_:processing in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04717497 = score(doc=2670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A total of 16 classifiers made a subject analysis of a set of books such that some of the books were first classified by the UDC anf then indexed with terms from the General Finnish Subject Headings while another set were processed in the opposite order. Finally books on the same subject were either classifies or indexed. The total number of books processed was 581. A comparison was made of the time required for processing in different situations and of the number of classes or subject headings used. The time figures were compared with corresponding data from the British Library (1972) and the Library of Congress (1990 and 1991). The author finds that the contents analysis requires one third, classification one third and indexing obe third of the time, if the document is both classified and indexed. There was a plausible correlation (o.51) between the length of experience in classification and the decrease in the time required for classing. The average number of UDC numbers was 4,3 and the average number of terms from the list of subject headings was 4,0

0.011793743 = product of:
  0.04717497 = sum of:
    0.04717497 = weight(_text_:processing in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04717497 = score(doc=5262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 27(1991) no.6, S.623-628

0.009212566 = product of:
  0.036850262 = sum of:
    0.036850262 = product of:
      0.05527539 = sum of:
        0.019974224 = weight(_text_:science in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019974224 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
        0.035301168 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035301168 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882

0.009212566 = product of:
  0.036850262 = sum of:
    0.036850262 = product of:
      0.05527539 = sum of:
        0.019974224 = weight(_text_:science in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019974224 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
        0.035301168 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035301168 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

Source

Journal of librarianship and information science. 32(2000) no.1, S.4-8

0.007721644 = product of:
  0.030886576 = sum of:
    0.030886576 = product of:
      0.046329863 = sum of:
        0.016645188 = weight(_text_:science in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016645188 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
        0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029684676 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - To examine the degree of exact and partial match between the assigned descriptors and title keywords of medical theses written in Farsi and submitted for a PhD degree.Design/methodology/approach - A sample population of 506 theses in Pediatrics, Gynecology, Cardiology and Psychiatry was randomly picked out of a total of 909 indexed in the Indexing Department of the Central Library of the Iran University of Medical Science and Health Care Services. The results obtained are compared with those reported for other documents written in Farsi and English. Where applicable, the influence of the foreign language and its structure is commented on.Findings - It is shown that the degree of match between the assigned descriptors and the title keywords is greater than 70 per cent, equaling those reported for Farsi books and Michigan University Library catalogue in USA. It is also shown that the frequency of the match has increased since 1982, indicating that the authors have become more attentive in their choice of title.Research limitations/implications - Detailed analysis of results, however, shows significant differences between the degree of exact match amongst the four categories, with psychiatry theses that use more common terms showing highest exact match findings (50 per cent).Originality/value - This paper highlights the need for a closer collaboration with medical institutions for definition of approved terms and their incorporation in indexation in order to improve findings in various medical categories.

Date

3.12.2005 19:38:29

0.00757475 = product of:
  0.030299 = sum of:
    0.030299 = sum of:
      0.006658075 = weight(_text_:science in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006658075 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043425296 = queryNorm
          0.05820636 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.011873869 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011873869 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043425296 = queryNorm
          0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.011767057 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011767057 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043425296 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.006177315 = product of:
  0.02470926 = sum of:
    0.02470926 = product of:
      0.03706389 = sum of:
        0.01331615 = weight(_text_:science in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01331615 = score(doc=5442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
        0.023747738 = weight(_text_:29 in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023747738 = score(doc=5442,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

The overall objective of this study was to examine the implementation of a different approach to the expression of the subject content of monographs in the cataloging record, i.e., the use of a post-coordinate, thesaurus of keywords, using inter-indexer consistency testing and in-depth analysis of mistakes in indexing. A sample of 50 non-fiction monographs was subject cataloged by 16 library science students (non-experienced indexers) using the new Hebrew Thesaurus of Indexing Terms (1996). The 800 indexing records of the non-experienced indexers were compared to the "correct indexing records" (prepared by a panel of three experienced indexers). Indexing consistency was measured using two different formulas used in previous inter-indexer studies. A medium level of inter-indexer consistency was found. In the analysis of mistakes, it was found that the most frequent mistake was the assignment of indexing terms to minor subject matter (i.e., subjects that were less than 20% of the content of the book). Among possible explanations offered for these finding are: sparseness of scope notes in the thesaurus, the priority given by Israeli public libraries to Hebrew language materials in the development of their non-fiction collection, and the size of the output of the Israeli publishing industry of non-fiction materials in Hebrew. The results of the consistency tests and the mistakes analysis were also examined in light of several factors: (1) the number of indexing terms assigned; (2) the length of the monographs (number of pages); and (3) subject area of each monograph. The same examinations were carried out for the subject cataloging records prepared by the Israeli Center for Libraries (ICL) for these monographs.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.2, S.29-54

0.005883528 = product of:
  0.023534112 = sum of:
    0.023534112 = product of:
      0.070602335 = sum of:
        0.070602335 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070602335 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

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

0.0039579566 = product of:
  0.015831826 = sum of:
    0.015831826 = product of:
      0.047495477 = sum of:
        0.047495477 = weight(_text_:29 in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047495477 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 1.1999 19:31:29

0.003923308 = product of:
  0.015693232 = sum of:
    0.015693232 = product of:
      0.047079697 = sum of:
        0.047079697 = weight(_text_:science in 1511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047079697 = score(doc=1511,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 1511, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1511)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abtracts) started in 1987 as a bimonthly indexing and abstracting service in the society field, aimed at practitioners as well as sociologists. Considers the following aspects of the service: arrangement of ASSIA; journal coverage; indexing approach; services for subscribers; and who are the users?

0.0038838773 = product of:
  0.015535509 = sum of:
    0.015535509 = product of:
      0.046606526 = sum of:
        0.046606526 = weight(_text_:science in 7494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046606526 = score(doc=7494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 7494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7494)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Graduate School of Library Science, University of Illinois

0.0034320583 = product of:
  0.013728233 = sum of:
    0.013728233 = product of:
      0.041184697 = sum of:
        0.041184697 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041184697 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0034320583 = product of:
  0.013728233 = sum of:
    0.013728233 = product of:
      0.041184697 = sum of:
        0.041184697 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041184697 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 1.2007 10:22:26

0.0033635364 = product of:
  0.013454146 = sum of:
    0.013454146 = product of:
      0.040362436 = sum of:
        0.040362436 = weight(_text_:science in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040362436 = score(doc=2308,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The LCC and DDC systems were devised and updated by librarians who had and have no access to the eventual frequency of use of each number in those classification systems. 80% of the monographs in a MARC file of over 1.000.000 records are classified into 20% of the classification numbers in the field of library science and only 20% of the mongraphs are classified into 80% of the classification numbers in the field of library science. Classification of monographs coulld be made easier and performed more accurately if many of the little used and unused numbers were eliminated and many of the most crowded numbers were expanded. A number of examples are included

0.0033290375 = product of:
  0.01331615 = sum of:
    0.01331615 = product of:
      0.03994845 = sum of:
        0.03994845 = weight(_text_:science in 7496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03994845 = score(doc=7496,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11438741 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 7496, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7496)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Cooperating information societies: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, San Francisco, CA, 1.-4.10.1969. Ed.: J.B. North