Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027743272 = product of:
  0.055486545 = sum of:
    0.055486545 = product of:
      0.11097309 = sum of:
        0.11097309 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11097309 = score(doc=6674,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.55947536 = fieldWeight in 6674, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article compares the indexing structure of icons with principles used for traditional indexing. The investigators apply fourteen traditional indexing principles to study and demonstrate whether traditional principles of indexing are applicable for icon analysis. One of the fourteen indexing principles is first chosen for this analysis. A sample of fifteen library homepages is drawn from the total population of the United States library homepages. The investigators examine the structure of the selected homepages and non-icon information on the homepages. They examine icons as a visual form of knowledge representation (the structure and features of the icons) to determine how icons are representative of the information to which they are linked. The investigators assess how the icons on each library homepage satisfy the indexing principle chosen for the study. The article also provides an analysis of meanings of these icons. The investigators use semiotics theory to study the icons. The icons on the homepages of the WWW carry meaning dependent on the syntax of their use. They also carry paradigmatic meanings derived from other systems or domains. Codes and syntax are culturally constructed, which shape the meaning of messages conveyed in the icons. This study demonstrates whether traditional indexing principles are applicable for icons analysis in the WWW environment. It is hoped that the study will help designers of WWW homepages employ icon features that communicate effectively to their users and suggest using icons as a visual form for knowledge representation on the WWW

0.024572134 = product of:
  0.049144268 = sum of:
    0.049144268 = product of:
      0.098288536 = sum of:
        0.098288536 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098288536 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.01468036 = product of:
  0.02936072 = sum of:
    0.02936072 = product of:
      0.05872144 = sum of:
        0.05872144 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05872144 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01468036 = product of:
  0.02936072 = sum of:
    0.02936072 = product of:
      0.05872144 = sum of:
        0.05872144 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05872144 = score(doc=3921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 3921, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Is there a link between the use of an indexing term and its physical similarity to its narrower terms? This analysis covered 1.296 terms, each with at least one narrower term in the ERIC thesaurus. It measured the postings per document of the entry terms and their narrower terms. There was almost no correlation between how often a term is assigned and how many similar looking narrower terms it has. Nevertheless, there were some sets of narrower terms that had much higher postings per document rates than their entry terms. Many of these narrower terms were much newer to the thesaurus than were their entry terms

0.01468036 = product of:
  0.02936072 = sum of:
    0.02936072 = product of:
      0.05872144 = sum of:
        0.05872144 = weight(_text_:indexing in 7762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05872144 = score(doc=7762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 7762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A survey of 255 librarians and college professors obtained their opinions of 3 elements of back of book indexes. Both groups overwhelmingly preferred line-by-line subheadings to the run-on arrangement, even though many books use the latter format. Almost all librarians preferred word-by-word alphabetization to the letter-by-letter method, but only about two thirds of the professors shared this preference. Strongest disagreement between the two groups occured when most of the librarians preferred see references to duplicate entries, while most professors selected duplicate entires instead of see references. Indexers and developers of indexing standards should consider the preferences of index users

0.014041219 = product of:
  0.028082438 = sum of:
    0.028082438 = product of:
      0.056164876 = sum of:
        0.056164876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056164876 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = 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