Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=837,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 837, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=837)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Within informetry publication and citation analyses stand out. The former are defined as quantitative studies of the content of the bibliographic fields, e.g. authors, in a defined document collection, the latter deal with the documents' literature lists and can be citations fron or to a document. Gives examples of how the RANK command in DIALOG can be used to count information units in phrase indexed fields enabling ranked lists of publications to be produced. DIALOG is best for analysing citations 'from'. A citation analysis 'to' is used for research evaluation, although it is agreed that it can only supplement, not supplant peer review. The Danish Library School's Centre for Informetric Studies researches online analysis and other other informetric questions

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 1619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=1619,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 1619, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1619)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Speakers dealt with the following topics: Definition of net documents, net robots and metadata; Dublic core, a project in which BIBSYS is involved, and the Nordic metadata project, which uses Dublin core; teaching of IT-related subjects at Oslo College Library and Information Department; NBR in Rana's BIBLINK project on bibliographic control of electronic publications; and common access to collections of visual information

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 7329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=7329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 7329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7329)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Comments on Statens Bibliotekstjeneste's 1993 report on subject data in research libraries. Despite the failure in the 70s to create a common classification system using notation, the report recommends just such a system but using verbal expressions. It assumes that subject indexing problems can be solved by reusing other libraries' key words and that user groups are homogeneous and able to use the systems thus leaving libraries as professionals intermediaries without responsibility. Uses the experiences of the author's library, the Environmental Library, which itself indexes all material, and gives 6 examples of how other institutions index the same publications differently, to show that the simple recycling system which the report recommends cannot be used there. Rather than spend recources on developing electronic catalogues, as the report recommends, funds should be used to help research libraries construct systems targeting their specific user group