Search (56 results, page 2 of 3)

0.016957048 = product of:
  0.050871145 = sum of:
    0.050871145 = product of:
      0.10174229 = sum of:
        0.10174229 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10174229 = score(doc=2653,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5349608 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper demonstrates that indexing is a complex phenomenon and presents a domain centered approach to indexing. The indexing process is analysed using the Means-Ends Analysis, a tool developed for the Cognitive Work Analysis framework. A Means-Ends Analysis of indexing provides a holistic understanding of indexing and Shows the importance of understanding the users' activities when indexing. The paper presents a domain-centered approach to indexing that includes an analysis of the users' activities and the paper outlines that approach to indexing.

Content

1. Introduction The document at hand is often regarded as the most important entity for analysis in the indexing situation. The indexer's focus is directed to the "entity and its faithful description" (Soergel, 1985, 227) and the indexer is advised to "stick to the text and the author's claims" (Lancaster, 2003, 37). The indexer's aim is to establish the subject matter based an an analysis of the document with the goal of representing the document as truthfully as possible and to ensure the subject representation's validity by remaining neutral and objective. To help indexers with their task they are guided towards particular and important attributes of the document that could help them determine the document's subject matter. The exact attributes the indexer is recommended to examine varies, but typical examples are: the title, the abstract, the table of contents, chapter headings, chapter subheadings, preface, introduction, foreword, the text itself, bibliographical references, index entries, illustrations, diagrams, and tables and their captions. The exact recommendations vary according to the type of document that is being indexed (monographs vs. periodical articles, for instance). It is clear that indexers should provide faithful descriptions, that indexers should represent the author's claims, and that the document's attributes are helpful points of analysis. However, indexers need much more guidance when determining the subject than simply the documents themselves. One approach that could be taken to handle the Situation is a useroriented approach in which it is argued that the indexer should ask, "how should I make this document ... visible to potential users? What terms should I use to convey its knowledge to those interested?" (Albrechtsen, 1993, 222). The basic idea is that indexers need to have the users' information needs and terminology in mind when determining the subject matter of documents as well as when selecting index terms.

0.016418591 = product of:
  0.049255773 = sum of:
    0.049255773 = product of:
      0.09851155 = sum of:
        0.09851155 = weight(_text_:indexing in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09851155 = score(doc=703,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.51797354 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is a truism in information science that indexing is associated with 'aboutness', and that index terms that accurately represent what a document is about will serve the needs of the user/searcher well. It is contended in this paper that indexing which is limited to the representation of aboutness serves the novice in a discipline adequately, but does not serve the scholar or researcher, who is concerned with highly specific aspects of or points-of-view on a subject. The linguistic analogs of 'aboutness' and 'aspects' are 'topic' and 'comment' respectively. Serial indexing services deal with topics at varyng levels of specificity, but neglect comment almost entirely. This may explain the underutilization of secondary information services by scholars, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in user studies. It may also account for the incomplete lists of bibliographic references in many research papers. Natural language searching of fulltext databases does not solve this problem, because the aspect of a topic of interest to researchers is often inexpressible in concrete terms. The thesis is illustrated with examples of indexing failures in research projects the author has conducted on a range of linguistic and library-information science topics. Finally, the question of whether indexing can be improved to meet the needs of researchers is examined

0.016253578 = product of:
  0.04876073 = sum of:
    0.04876073 = product of:
      0.09752146 = sum of:
        0.09752146 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09752146 = score(doc=1783,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 1783, 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=1783)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines how an analytical framework to describe the contents of images may be extended to deal with time based materials like film and music. A levels of meanings table was developed and used as an indexing template for image retrieval purposes. Develops a concept of democratic indexing which focused on user interpretation. Describes the approach to image or pictorial information retrieval. Extends the approach in relation to fiction

0.016086869 = product of:
  0.048260607 = sum of:
    0.048260607 = product of:
      0.09652121 = sum of:
        0.09652121 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09652121 = score(doc=2977,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 2977, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2977)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.016086869 = product of:
  0.048260607 = sum of:
    0.048260607 = product of:
      0.09652121 = sum of:
        0.09652121 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09652121 = score(doc=2990,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 2990, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2990)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Challenges in indexing electronic text and images. Ed.: R. Fidel et al

0.016086869 = product of:
  0.048260607 = sum of:
    0.048260607 = product of:
      0.09652121 = sum of:
        0.09652121 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09652121 = score(doc=3953,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 3953, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper endeavours to show the possibilities for thematic description of audio-visual documents for television with the aim of promoting and facilitating information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - To achieve these goals different database fields are shown, as well as the way in which they are organised for indexing and thematic element description, analysed and used as an example. Some of the database fields are extracted from an analytical study of the documentary system of television in Spain. Others are being tested in university television on which indexing experiments are carried out. Findings - Not all thematic descriptions are used on television information systems; nevertheless, some television channels do use thematic descriptions of both image and sound, applying thesauri. Moreover, it is possible to access sequences using full text retrieval as well. Originality/value - The development of the documentary task, applying the described techniques, promotes thematic indexing and hence thematic retrieval. Given the fact that this is without doubt one of the aspects most demanded by television journalists (along with people's names). This conceptualisation translates into the adaptation of databases to new indexing methods.

0.013931636 = product of:
  0.041794907 = sum of:
    0.041794907 = product of:
      0.083589815 = sum of:
        0.083589815 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083589815 = score(doc=2247,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical investigation of the concept of 'subject' or 'subject matter' in library and information science. Most conceptions of 'subject' in the literature are not explicit but implicit. Various indexing and classification theories, including automatic indexing and citation indexing, have their own more or less implicit concepts of subject. This fact puts the emphasis on making the implicit theorie of 'subject matter' explicit as the first step. ... The different conceptions of 'subject' can therefore be classified into epistemological positions, e.g. 'subjective idealism' (or the empiric/positivistic viewpoint), 'objective idealism' (the rationalistic viewpoint), 'pragmatism' and 'materialism/realism'. The third and final step is to propose a new theory of subject matter based on an explicit theory of knowledge. In this article this is done from the point of view of a realistic/materialistic epistemology. From this standpoint the subject of a document is defined as the epistemological potentials of that document

0.013931636 = product of:
  0.041794907 = sum of:
    0.041794907 = product of:
      0.083589815 = sum of:
        0.083589815 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083589815 = score(doc=3832,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 3832, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In order to explain how indexers chose their keywords and how their results can differ between each other, focuses on certain properties of the terms rather than on the terms themselves. Bases the study on 4 premises borrowed from research in semiotics, cognitive science, discourse analysis and reading theories. Reports on the methodology used, and some of the findings obtained by comparing properties of indexing terms with the content of titles and abstracts of 844 bibliographic records extracted from a database on environment. Characterizes some tendencies of the special reading which indexing constitutes as a series of properties of the selected or rejected works and explains the differences among several indexers by the porperties toward which they are inclined

0.013931636 = product of:
  0.041794907 = sum of:
    0.041794907 = product of:
      0.083589815 = sum of:
        0.083589815 = weight(_text_:indexing in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083589815 = score(doc=320,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article argues that authorial stance should be taken into account in the indexing of scientific documents. Authorial stance has been widely studied in linguistics and is a typical feature of scientific writing that reveals the uniqueness of each author's perspective, their scientific contribution, and their thinking. We argue that authorial stance guides the reading of scientific documents and that it can be used to characterize the knowledge contained in such documents. Our research has previously shown that people reading dissertations are interested both in a topic and in a document's authorial stance. Now, we would like to propose a two-tiered indexing system. Dissertations would first be divided into paragraphs; then, each information unit would be defined by topic and by the markers of authorial stance present in the document.

0.0134057235 = product of:
  0.04021717 = sum of:
    0.04021717 = product of:
      0.08043434 = sum of:
        0.08043434 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08043434 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents a theoretical model, based on the Flower/Hayes model of expository writing, of the process involved in content analysis for abstracting and indexing.

0.0134057235 = product of:
  0.04021717 = sum of:
    0.04021717 = product of:
      0.08043434 = sum of:
        0.08043434 = weight(_text_:indexing in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08043434 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses subject analysis as an important stage in the indexing process and observes confusions that can occur in the meaning of the term. Considers questions and difficulties about subject analysis and the concept of aboutness

0.013270989 = product of:
  0.039812967 = sum of:
    0.039812967 = product of:
      0.079625934 = sum of:
        0.079625934 = weight(_text_:indexing in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079625934 = score(doc=904,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.41867304 = fieldWeight in 904, 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=904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines Panofsky's and Barthes's theories of image analysis and reports on a study of criteria for analysis and indexing of images and the different types of user queries used in 15 Danish newspaper image archives. A structured interview method and observation and various categories for subject analysis were used. The results identify a list of the minimum number of elements and led to user typology of 5 categories. The requirement for retrieval may involve combining images in a more visual way with text-based image retrieval

0.013270989 = product of:
  0.039812967 = sum of:
    0.039812967 = product of:
      0.079625934 = sum of:
        0.079625934 = weight(_text_:indexing in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079625934 = score(doc=354,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.41867304 = fieldWeight in 354, 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=354)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper suggests a theoretical basis for identifying and classifying the kinds of subjects a picture may have, using previously developed principles of cataloging and classification, and concepts taken from the philosophy of art, from meaning in language, and from visual perception. The purpose of developing this theoretical basis is to provide the reader with a means for evaluating, adapting, and applying presently existing indexing languages, or for devising new languages for pictorial materials; this paper does not attempt to invent or prescribe a particular indexing language.

0.011375135 = product of:
  0.034125403 = sum of:
    0.034125403 = product of:
      0.068250805 = sum of:
        0.068250805 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068250805 = score(doc=6472,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Studies of indexing neglect the first stage of the process, that is, subject analysis. In this study, novice indexers were asked to analyse three short, popular journal articles; to express the general subject as well as the primary and secondary topics in natural laguage statements; to state what influenced the analysis and to comment on the ease or difficulty of this process. The factors which influenced the process were: the subject discipline concerned, factual vs. subjective nature of the text, complexity of the subject, clarity of text, possible support offered by bibliographic apparatus such as title, etc. The findings showed that with the social science and science texts, the general subject could be determined with ease, while this was more difficult with the humanities text. Clear evidence emerged of the importance of bibliographical apparatus in defining the general subject. There was varying difficulty in determining the primary and secondarx topics

0.011375135 = product of:
  0.034125403 = sum of:
    0.034125403 = product of:
      0.068250805 = sum of:
        0.068250805 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068250805 = score(doc=1958,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.

0.011219318 = product of:
  0.033657953 = sum of:
    0.033657953 = product of:
      0.06731591 = sum of:
        0.06731591 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06731591 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.01072458 = product of:
  0.032173738 = sum of:
    0.032173738 = product of:
      0.064347476 = sum of:
        0.064347476 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064347476 = score(doc=2199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.3383389 = fieldWeight in 2199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.009479279 = product of:
  0.028437834 = sum of:
    0.028437834 = product of:
      0.05687567 = sum of:
        0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05687567 = score(doc=2069,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 2069, 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=2069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

0.009479279 = product of:
  0.028437834 = sum of:
    0.028437834 = product of:
      0.05687567 = sum of:
        0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05687567 = score(doc=4702,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 4702, 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=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.

0.009479279 = product of:
  0.028437834 = sum of:
    0.028437834 = product of:
      0.05687567 = sum of:
        0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05687567 = score(doc=2122,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 2122, 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=2122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although images are visual information sources with little or no text associated with them, users still tend to use text to describe images and formulate queries. This is because digital libraries and search engines provide mostly text query options and rely on text annotations for representation and retrieval of the semantic content of images. While the main focus of image research is on indexing and retrieval of individual images, the general topic of image browsing and indexing, and retrieval of groups of images has not been adequately investigated. Comparisons of descriptions of individual images as well as labels of groups of images supplied by users using cognitive models are scarce. This work fills this gap. Using the basic level theory as a framework, a comparison of the descriptions of individual images and labels assigned to groups of images by 180 participants in three studies found a marked difference in their level of abstraction. Results confirm assertions by previous researchers in LIS and other fields that groups of images are labeled using more superordinate level terms while individual image descriptions are mainly at the basic level. Implications for design of image browsing interfaces, taxonomies, thesauri, and similar tools are discussed.