Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Diodato, V."
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  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 Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries.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
  2. 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)
  3. 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

Types

Themes