Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03172685 = product of:
  0.15863423 = sum of:
    0.15863423 = weight(_text_:books in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15863423 = score(doc=2670,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6407824 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.027476257 = product of:
  0.13738129 = sum of:
    0.13738129 = weight(_text_:books in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13738129 = score(doc=2700,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5549339 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper presents the findings of a study of indexing procedure with the use of a thesaurus for post-coordination. In the first phase of the study, the indexing records of 50 books, prepared by a central cataloging service (the Israeli Center for Libraries), were compared with the indexing records for these books prepared by three independent indexers. In the second phase, indexing records for three books prepared by 51 librarians were studied. In both phases, indexing records were analyzed for mistakes and possible reasons for these mistakes are offered.

0.02643904 = product of:
  0.1321952 = sum of:
    0.1321952 = weight(_text_:books in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1321952 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5339854 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

For truly effective subject access, it is essential that books on any given topic be brought together consistently under the same subject heading. With the advent of online catalogs, this goal has assumed new importance but has also become easier to achieve

0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 5612, 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=5612)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent papers have called attention to discrepancies in the assignment of LCSH. While philosophical arguments can be made that subject analysis, if not a logical impossibility, at least is point-of-view dependent, subject headings continue to be assigned and continue to be useful. The hypothesis advanced in the present project is that to a considerable degree there is a clear-cut right and wrong to LCSH subject heading assignment. To test the hypothesis, it was postulated that the assignment of a subject heading is correct if it is supported by textual warrant (at least 20% of the book being cataloged is on the topic) and is constructed in accordance with the LoC Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. A sample of 100 books on scientific subjects was used to test the hypothesis

0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

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

0.01321952 = product of:
  0.0660976 = sum of:
    0.0660976 = weight(_text_:books in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0660976 = score(doc=4739,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.01321952 = product of:
  0.0660976 = sum of:
    0.0660976 = weight(_text_:books in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0660976 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The behaviour and lexical quality of the folksonomies is examined by comparing two online social networks: Library-Thing (for books) and Flickr (for photos). We presented a case study that combines quantitative and qualitative elements, singularized by the lexical and functional framework. Our query was made by "Legal History" and by the synonyms "Law History" and "History of Law." We then examined the relevance, consistency and precision of the tags attached to the retrieved documents, in addition to their lexical composition. We identified the difficulties caused by free tagging and some of the folksonomy solutions that have been found to solve them. The results are presented in comparative tables, giving special attention to related tags within each retrieved document. Although the number of ambiguous or inconsistent tags is not very large, these do nevertheless represent the most obvious problem to search and retrieval in folksonomies. Relevance is high when the terms are assigned by especially competent taggers. Even with less expert taggers, ambiguity is often successfully corrected by contextualizing the concepts within related tags. A propinquity to associative and taxonomic lexical semantic knowledge is reached via contextual relationships.

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

4. 1.2007 10:22:26

0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.

0.0027759846 = product of:
  0.013879923 = sum of:
    0.013879923 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013879923 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05