Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Diodato, V.: Duplicate entries versus see cross references in back-of-the book indexes (1994) 0.06

0.06451034 = product of:
  0.16127585 = sum of:
    0.105756156 = weight(_text_:books in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105756156 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.42718828 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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 Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries.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

Diodato, V.: Tables of contents and book indexes : how well do they match readers' descriptions of books? (1986) 0.04
```
0.041970674 = product of:
  0.20985337 = sum of:
    0.20985337 = weight(_text_:books in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20985337 = score(doc=376,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.8476755 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

The author collected information about tables of content and index terms in 125 books borrowed by patrons in a medium-sized academic library. To learn how useful the term would be as subject terms in a library catalog, he determined which of these terms were the same as the words used by the patrons to describe the books. For 72,4% of the books assigned LCSH, the patron's term matched the LCheading. The patron's term matched the table of contents term for (1,3% of the books with tables of contents. If the catalog had included terms from the tables of contents and the indexes in addition to the LCSH, the success rate would have been 97,3%. One problem in using terms from books in a library catalog is that many books lack indexes and/or tables of context

Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.02

0.019431893 = product of:
  0.09715946 = sum of:
    0.09715946 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09715946 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

Diodato, V.: User preferences for features in back of the book indexes (1994) 0.02
```
0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 7762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=7762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 7762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7762)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
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

Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Years

Types

Themes