Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Automatisches Indexieren"
  • × language_ss:"d"
  1. Lustig, G.: ¬Das Projekt WAI : Wörterbuchentwicklung für automatisches Indexing (1982) 0.02
    0.018768014 = product of:
      0.05630404 = sum of:
        0.05630404 = product of:
          0.11260808 = sum of:
            0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11260808 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
  2. Fuhr, N.: Probabilistisches Indexing and Retrieval (1988) 0.02
    0.018768014 = product of:
      0.05630404 = sum of:
        0.05630404 = product of:
          0.11260808 = sum of:
            0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11260808 = score(doc=4829,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 4829, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4829)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
  3. Yusuff, A.: Automatisches Indexing and Abstracting : Grundlagen und Beispiele (2002) 0.02
    0.018768014 = product of:
      0.05630404 = sum of:
        0.05630404 = product of:
          0.11260808 = sum of:
            0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11260808 = score(doc=1577,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 1577, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1577)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
  4. Lepsky, K.; Siepmann, J.; Zimmermann, A.: Automatische Indexierung für Online-Kataloge : Ergebnisse eines Retrievaltests (1996) 0.02
    0.016253578 = product of:
      0.04876073 = sum of:
        0.04876073 = product of:
          0.09752146 = sum of:
            0.09752146 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09752146 = score(doc=3251,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 3251, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3251)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Examines the effectiveness of automated indexing and presents the results of a study of information retrieval from a segment (40.000 items) of the ULB Düsseldorf database. The segment was selected randomly and all the documents included were indexed automatically. The search topics included 50 subject areas ranging from economic growth to alternative energy sources. While there were 876 relevant documents in the database segment for each of the 50 search topics, the recall ranged from 1 to 244 references, with the average being 17.52 documents per topic. Therefore it seems that, in the immediate future, automatic indexing should be used in combination with intellectual indexing
  5. Gödert, W.; Liebig, M.: Maschinelle Indexierung auf dem Prüfstand : Ergebnisse eines Retrievaltests zum MILOS II Projekt (1997) 0.02
    0.016253578 = product of:
      0.04876073 = sum of:
        0.04876073 = product of:
          0.09752146 = sum of:
            0.09752146 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09752146 = score(doc=1174,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 1174, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1174)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The test ran between Nov 95-Aug 96 in Cologne Fachhochschule fur Bibliothekswesen (College of Librarianship).The test basis was a database of 190,000 book titles published between 1990-95. MILOS II mechanized indexing methods proved helpful in avoiding or reducing numbers of unsatisfied/no result retrieval searches. Retrieval from mechanised indexing is 3 times more successful than from title keyword data. MILOS II also used a standardized semantic vocabulary. Mechanised indexing demands high quality software and output data
  6. Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984) 0.02
    0.015707046 = product of:
      0.047121134 = sum of:
        0.047121134 = product of:
          0.09424227 = sum of:
            0.09424227 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09424227 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, 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=262)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    20.10.2000 12:22:23
  7. Fuhr, N.: Ranking-Experimente mit gewichteter Indexierung (1986) 0.01
    0.0134631805 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = product of:
          0.08077908 = sum of:
            0.08077908 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08077908 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, 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=58)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    14. 6.2015 22:12:44
  8. Hauer, M.: Automatische Indexierung (2000) 0.01
    0.0134631805 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = product of:
          0.08077908 = sum of:
            0.08077908 = weight(_text_:22 in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08077908 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5887, 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=5887)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Wissen in Aktion: Wege des Knowledge Managements. 22. Online-Tagung der DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 2.-4.5.2000. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt
  9. Fuhr, N.: Rankingexperimente mit gewichteter Indexierung (1986) 0.01
    0.0134631805 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = product of:
          0.08077908 = sum of:
            0.08077908 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08077908 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, 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=2051)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    14. 6.2015 22:12:56
  10. Hauer, M.: Tiefenindexierung im Bibliothekskatalog : 17 Jahre intelligentCAPTURE (2019) 0.01
    0.0134631805 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = product of:
          0.08077908 = sum of:
            0.08077908 = weight(_text_:22 in 5629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08077908 = score(doc=5629,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5629, 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=5629)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.2, S.163-166
  11. Ma, N.; Zheng, H.T.; Xiao, X.: ¬An ontology-based latent semantic indexing approach using long short-term memory networks (2017) 0.01
    0.0134057235 = product of:
      0.04021717 = sum of:
        0.04021717 = product of:
          0.08043434 = sum of:
            0.08043434 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08043434 = score(doc=3810,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 3810, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3810)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Nowadays, online data shows an astonishing increase and the issue of semantic indexing remains an open question. Ontologies and knowledge bases have been widely used to optimize performance. However, researchers are placing increased emphasis on internal relations of ontologies but neglect latent semantic relations between ontologies and documents. They generally annotate instances mentioned in documents, which are related to concepts in ontologies. In this paper, we propose an Ontology-based Latent Semantic Indexing approach utilizing Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTM-OLSI). We utilize an importance-aware topic model to extract document-level semantic features and leverage ontologies to extract word-level contextual features. Then we encode the above two levels of features and match their embedding vectors utilizing LSTM networks. Finally, the experimental results reveal that LSTM-OLSI outperforms existing techniques and demonstrates deep comprehension of instances and articles.
    Object
    Latent Semantic Indexing
  12. Kuhlen, R.: Experimentelle Morphologie in der Informationswissenschaft (1977) 0.01
    0.013270989 = product of:
      0.039812967 = sum of:
        0.039812967 = product of:
          0.079625934 = sum of:
            0.079625934 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.079625934 = score(doc=4253,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.41867304 = fieldWeight in 4253, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4253)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    LCSH
    Automatic indexing
    Subject
    Automatic indexing
  13. Grün, S.: Mehrwortbegriffe und Latent Semantic Analysis : Bewertung automatisch extrahierter Mehrwortgruppen mit LSA (2017) 0.01
    0.009479279 = product of:
      0.028437834 = sum of:
        0.028437834 = product of:
          0.05687567 = sum of:
            0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05687567 = score(doc=3954,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Die vorliegende Studie untersucht das Potenzial von Mehrwortbegriffen für das Information Retrieval. Zielsetzung der Arbeit ist es, intellektuell positiv bewertete Kandidaten mithilfe des Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) Verfahren höher zu gewichten, als negativ bewertete Kandidaten. Die positiven Kandidaten sollen demnach bei einem Ranking im Information Retrieval bevorzugt werden. Als Kollektion wurde eine Version der sozialwissenschaftlichen GIRT-Datenbank (German Indexing and Retrieval Testdatabase) eingesetzt. Um Kandidaten für Mehrwortbegriffe zu identifizieren wurde die automatische Indexierung Lingo verwendet. Die notwendigen Kernfunktionalitäten waren Lemmatisierung, Identifizierung von Komposita, algorithmische Mehrworterkennung sowie Gewichtung von Indextermen durch das LSA-Modell. Die durch Lingo erkannten und LSAgewichteten Mehrwortkandidaten wurden evaluiert. Zuerst wurde dazu eine intellektuelle Auswahl von positiven und negativen Mehrwortkandidaten vorgenommen. Im zweiten Schritt der Evaluierung erfolgte die Berechnung der Ausbeute, um den Anteil der positiven Mehrwortkandidaten zu erhalten. Im letzten Schritt der Evaluierung wurde auf der Basis der R-Precision berechnet, wie viele positiv bewerteten Mehrwortkandidaten es an der Stelle k des Rankings geschafft haben. Die Ausbeute der positiven Mehrwortkandidaten lag bei durchschnittlich ca. 39%, während die R-Precision einen Durchschnittswert von 54% erzielte. Das LSA-Modell erzielt ein ambivalentes Ergebnis mit positiver Tendenz.
    Object
    Latent Semantic Indexing
  14. Lepsky, K.; Vorhauer, J.: Lingo - ein open source System für die Automatische Indexierung deutschsprachiger Dokumente (2006) 0.01
    0.008975455 = product of:
      0.026926363 = sum of:
        0.026926363 = product of:
          0.053852726 = sum of:
            0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 3581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053852726 = score(doc=3581,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3581, 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=3581)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    24. 3.2006 12:22:02
  15. Probst, M.; Mittelbach, J.: Maschinelle Indexierung in der Sacherschließung wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken (2006) 0.01
    0.008975455 = product of:
      0.026926363 = sum of:
        0.026926363 = product of:
          0.053852726 = sum of:
            0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 1755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053852726 = score(doc=1755,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1755, 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=1755)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2008 12:35:19
  16. Glaesener, L.: Automatisches Indexieren einer informationswissenschaftlichen Datenbank mit Mehrwortgruppen (2012) 0.01
    0.008975455 = product of:
      0.026926363 = sum of:
        0.026926363 = product of:
          0.053852726 = sum of:
            0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053852726 = score(doc=401,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 401, 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=401)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    11. 9.2012 19:43:22
  17. Renz, M.: Automatische Inhaltserschließung im Zeichen von Wissensmanagement (2001) 0.01
    0.007853523 = product of:
      0.023560567 = sum of:
        0.023560567 = product of:
          0.047121134 = sum of:
            0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 5671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047121134 = score(doc=5671,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5671, 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=5671)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2001 13:14:48
  18. Kasprzik, A.: Voraussetzungen und Anwendungspotentiale einer präzisen Sacherschließung aus Sicht der Wissenschaft (2018) 0.01
    0.007853523 = product of:
      0.023560567 = sum of:
        0.023560567 = product of:
          0.047121134 = sum of:
            0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 5195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047121134 = score(doc=5195,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5195, 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=5195)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Große Aufmerksamkeit richtet sich im Moment auf das Potential von automatisierten Methoden in der Sacherschließung und deren Interaktionsmöglichkeiten mit intellektuellen Methoden. In diesem Kontext befasst sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit den folgenden Fragen: Was sind die Anforderungen an bibliothekarische Metadaten aus Sicht der Wissenschaft? Was wird gebraucht, um den Informationsbedarf der Fachcommunities zu bedienen? Und was bedeutet das entsprechend für die Automatisierung der Metadatenerstellung und -pflege? Dieser Beitrag fasst die von der Autorin eingenommene Position in einem Impulsvortrag und der Podiumsdiskussion beim Workshop der FAG "Erschließung und Informationsvermittlung" des GBV zusammen. Der Workshop fand im Rahmen der 22. Verbundkonferenz des GBV statt.
  19. Franke-Maier, M.: Anforderungen an die Qualität der Inhaltserschließung im Spannungsfeld von intellektuell und automatisch erzeugten Metadaten (2018) 0.01
    0.007853523 = product of:
      0.023560567 = sum of:
        0.023560567 = product of:
          0.047121134 = sum of:
            0.047121134 = weight(_text_:22 in 5344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047121134 = score(doc=5344,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5344, 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=5344)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Spätestens seit dem Deutschen Bibliothekartag 2018 hat sich die Diskussion zu den automatischen Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek von einer politisch geführten Diskussion in eine Qualitätsdiskussion verwandelt. Der folgende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit Fragen der Qualität von Inhaltserschließung in digitalen Zeiten, wo heterogene Erzeugnisse unterschiedlicher Verfahren aufeinandertreffen und versucht, wichtige Anforderungen an Qualität zu definieren. Dieser Tagungsbeitrag fasst die vom Autor als Impulse vorgetragenen Ideen beim Workshop der FAG "Erschließung und Informationsvermittlung" des GBV am 29. August 2018 in Kiel zusammen. Der Workshop fand im Rahmen der 22. Verbundkonferenz des GBV statt.
  20. Nohr, H.: Automatische Indexierung : Einführung in betriebliche Verfahren, Systeme und Anwendungen (2001) 0.01
    0.0075834226 = product of:
      0.022750268 = sum of:
        0.022750268 = product of:
          0.045500536 = sum of:
            0.045500536 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.045500536 = score(doc=2543,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.23924173 = fieldWeight in 2543, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2543)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Classification
    AN 95300 Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft / Informationswissenschaft / Informationspraxis / Automatisches Indexing (z.B. KWIC, KWOC)
    RVK
    AN 95300 Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft / Informationswissenschaft / Informationspraxis / Automatisches Indexing (z.B. KWIC, KWOC)