Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019702308 = product of:
  0.059106924 = sum of:
    0.059106924 = product of:
      0.11821385 = sum of:
        0.11821385 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11821385 = score(doc=3074,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6215682 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The selection and representation of concepts in indexing of the same documents in 2 databases of library and information studies are considered. the authors compare the indexing of 49 documents in KINF and LISA. They focus on the types of concepts presented in indexing, the degree of concept consistency in indexing, and similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts. The largest group of indexed concepts in both databases was the category of entities while concepts belonging to the category of properties were almost missing in both databases. The second largest group of indexed concepts in KINF was the category of activities and in LISA the category of dimensions. Although the concept consistency between KINF and LISA remained rather low and was only 34%, there were approximately 2,2 concepts per document which were indexed from the same documents in both databses. These common concepts belonged mostly to the category of entities

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=3593,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considers the interindexer consistency between indexers working in various organisations and reports on the result of an empirical study. The interindexer consistency was low, but there were clear differences depending on whether the consistency was calculated on the basis to terms or concepts or aspects. The fact that the consistency figures remained low can be explained. The low indexing consistency caused by indexing errors also seems to be difficult to control. Indexing consistency and its control have a clear impact on how feasible and useful centralised services and union catalogues are and can be from the point of view of subject description.

0.018575516 = product of:
  0.055726547 = sum of:
    0.055726547 = product of:
      0.11145309 = sum of:
        0.11145309 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11145309 = score(doc=4779,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 4779, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The interindexer consistency between indexers working in 10 libraries was considered. The indexing environment is described with the help of organisational theory. Interindexer consistency was low, but there were clear differences depending on whether consistency was calculated on the basis of terms or concepts or aspects. Discusses the indexing environment's connections to interindexer consistency

0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=5180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Selection of search terms is considered a meeting place of different discourses. Discourse referes to the ways of talking and thinking about a certain topic. There exist concurrently different discourses on the same topic. Although the selection of search terms used to be described as a translation process, it could also be seen as a situation where searchers step into different discourses and select search terms from various sources on the basis of their own previous experience. Based on an empirical study, the paper describes the various sources of search terms. They are controlled vocabularies, assumptions about indexing, documents and their titles, clients' words, databases, and the searchers' own search experience. Because the searchers have different experience and are working in different types of work environments, they use these sources differently. The paper also outlines a model for understanding the selection od search terms as a meeting place of different discourses

0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=1667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 1667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses a new model of search term selection and its implications. The model characterizes the selection of search terms as the navigation of multiple discourses, including controlled vocabularies, documents and their domains, the practice of indexing, clients' speech and search requests, databases and the searcher's own knowledge of the search process. Suggests that the multiple aspects of these discourses influences search term selection. The discourse of a controlled vocabulary is analyzed from various aspects and described as an example of a discourse. Professional searchers and the end users may benefit from adopting this new model of search term selection, learning to see alternative, effective search terms in addition to the words they would normally use. The model can also be incorporated in human computer interfaces of information retrieval systems to support the selection of search terms in a passive or active manner

0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Proposes a model of the search term selection process based on an empirical study of professional searchers during the pre-online stage of the search process. The model chraracterises the selection of search terms as the navigation of different discourses. 6 discourses emerged as sources of search terms: controlled vocabularies, documents and the domain, the practice of indexing, clients' search request, databases and the searchers' own search experience. Searchers navigate the discourses dynamically and have preferences for certain discourses. Emphasises the multiplicity and complexity of sources of search terms, the dynamic nature of the search term selection process and the complex analysis and synthesis of differences and similarities among sources of search terms. Searchers may need to understand fundamental aspects of multiple discourses in order to select search terms

0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions