Search (86 results, page 1 of 5)

0.10245132 = product of:
  0.15367697 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=823,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 823, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=823)
    0.02815202 = product of:
      0.05630404 = sum of:
        0.05630404 = weight(_text_:indexing in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05630404 = score(doc=823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Connecting and evaluating thesauri is an important task for the systematic development of better information retrieval systems. Connecting thesauri includes not only determining when terms in different thesauri are the same but also determining what kinds of relationships can be transferred from one thesaurus to another. This paper first presents issues in connecting and evaluating thesauri. Various experiments in connecting a particular thesaurus, the Medical Subject Headings, with other medical thesauri are described. In these experiments, similar terms in two thesauri are recognized and then differences in two thesauri are exploited to create more powerful thesauri. Part of the evaluation requires the thesaurus to support automatic indexing and retrieving of documents

0.08781542 = product of:
  0.13172312 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=4863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 4863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4863)
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=4863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 4863, 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=4863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The World Wide Web and the use of HTML-based information displays has greatly increased access to online information sources, but at the same time limits the ways in which they can be used. By the same token, Web-based indexing and search engines give us access to the full text of online documents, but make it difficult to access them in any kind of organized, systematic way. For years before the advent of the Internet, lexicographers built weIl-structured subject thesauri to organize large collections of documents. These have since been converted into electronic form and even put online, but in ways that are largely uncoordinated and not useful for searching. This paper describes some of the ways in which XML-based Web services could be used to coordinate subject thesauri and other online vocabulary sources to create a "Thesauro-Web" that could be used by both searchers and indexers to improve subject access an the Internet.

0.08781542 = product of:
  0.13172312 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=5362,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 5362, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5362)
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=5362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 5362, 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=5362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The goal of this study is to evaluate, compare, and contrast how facet analysis is used to construct the systematic or faceted displays of a selection of information retrieval thesauri. More specifically, the study seeks to examine which principles of facet analysis are used in the thesauri, and the extent to which different thesauri apply these principles in the same way. A measuring instrument was designed for the purpose of evaluating the structure of faceted thesauri. This instrument was applied to fourteen faceted information retrieval thesauri. The study reveals that the thesauri do not share a common definition of what constitutes a facet. In some cases, the thesauri apply both enumerative-style classification and facet analysis to arrange their indexing terms. A number of the facets used in the thesauri are not homogeneous or mutually exclusive. The principle of synthesis is used in only 50% of the thesauri, and no one citation order is used consistently by the thesauri.

0.07979104 = product of:
  0.2393731 = sum of:
    0.2393731 = sum of:
      0.19898356 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19898356 = score(doc=3197,freq=34.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          1.0462552 = fieldWeight in 3197, product of:
            5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
              34.0 = termFreq=34.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3197)
      0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 3197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04038954 = score(doc=3197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3197, 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=3197)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Indexing consists of both novel and more traditional techniques. Cutting-edge indexing techniques, such as automatic indexing, ontologies, and topic maps, were developed independently of older techniques such as thesauri, but it is now recognized that these older methods also hold expertise. Indexing describes various traditional and novel indexing techniques, giving information professionals and students of library and information sciences a broad and comprehensible introduction to indexing. This title consists of twelve chapters: an Introduction to subject readings and theasauri; Automatic indexing versus manual indexing; Techniques applied in automatic indexing of text material; Automatic indexing of images; The black art of indexing moving images; Automatic indexing of music; Taxonomies and ontologies; Metadata formats and indexing; Tagging; Topic maps; Indexing the web; and The Semantic Web.

Date

24. 8.2016 14:03:22

LCSH

Indexing

Subject

Indexing

0.07873234 = product of:
  0.11809851 = sum of:
    0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 7410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08966068 = score(doc=7410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 7410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7410)
    0.028437834 = product of:
      0.05687567 = sum of:
        0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 7410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05687567 = score(doc=7410,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 7410, 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=7410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Once the library has been through a process of transition from traditional library procedures to automated ones, natural language searching became a necessity for both indexers and searchers. Therefore, aside from the precoordinated classified catalogue we started to build a dictionary of terms in order to make postcoordinate search possible in keeping with the UDC notations assigned to each bibliographic record. After a while we came to the conclusion that the dictionary needed a control of its terms so that synonymous concepts and semantic ambuguities be avoided. The project presented in this paper shows how reality imposed the improvement of the quality of indexing and hence of the searching possibilities. Is also shows the reasons why we consider a multilingual thesaurus based on UDC an ideal indexing and searching device. The experiment applied on class 8 of UDC illustrates the way the UDC tables can be quite successfully used in building a thesaurus due to their qulities and how their limitations can be overcome by a thesaurus. An appendix to the paper contains a sample of the multilingual thesaurus given in both alphabetical and systematic layouts

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=3222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 3222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3222)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the thesaurus that has been created at the Library of the Polish Parliament and is one element of the STEBIS system (System Tezaurusow Biblioteki Sejmowej). Discusses and illustrates with examples the rules of selecting vocabulary terms. The main aim is to map the contents of Polish and foreign documents and to preserve compatibility with the EUROVOC Thesaurus of the European Parliament. Emphasizes the need for the systematization of terms within one logical setup, with regard to the alphabetical and systematic part of the thesaurus and the multilingual character of the EUROVOC Thesaurus

0.030177874 = product of:
  0.09053362 = sum of:
    0.09053362 = sum of:
      0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05687567 = score(doc=2337,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 2337, 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=2337)
      0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033657953 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2337, 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=2337)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Despite early claims to the contemporary, thesauri continue to find use as access tools for information in the full-text environment. Their mode of use is changing, but this change actually represents an expansion rather than a contrdiction of their utility. Thesauri and similar vocabulary tools can complement full-text access by aiding users in focusing their searches, by supplementing the linguistic analysis of the text search engine, and even by serving as one of the tools used by the linguistic engine for its analysis. While human indexing contunues to be used for many databases, the trend is to increase the use of machine aids for this purpose. All machine-aided indexing (MAI) systems rely on thesauri as the basis for term selection. In the 21st century, the balance of effort between human and machine will change at both input and output, but thesauri will continue to play an important role for the foreseeable future

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.029550051 = product of:
  0.08865015 = sum of:
    0.08865015 = sum of:
      0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048260607 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
      0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 1181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04038954 = score(doc=1181,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1181, 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=1181)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Nuovo soggettario, the official Italian subject indexing system edited by the National Central Library of Florence, is made up of interactive components, the core of which is a general thesaurus and some rules of a conventional syntax for subject string construction. The Nuovo soggettario Thesaurus is in compliance with ISO 25964: 2011-2013, IFLA LRM, and FAIR principle (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability). Its open data are available in the Zthes, MARC21, and in SKOS formats and allow for interoperability with l library, archive, and museum databases. The Thesaurus's macrostructure is organized into four fundamental macro-categories, thirteen categories, and facets. The facets allow for the orderly development of hierarchies, thereby limiting polyhierarchies and promoting the grouping of homogenous concepts. This paper addresses the main features and peculiarities which have characterized the consistent development of this categorical structure and its effects on the syntactic sphere in a predominantly pre-coordinated usage context.

Date

26.11.2023 18:59:22

0.024107099 = product of:
  0.072321296 = sum of:
    0.072321296 = sum of:
      0.04876073 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04876073 = score(doc=3644,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.25638384 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.023560567 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023560567 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

0.02275027 = product of:
  0.068250805 = sum of:
    0.068250805 = product of:
      0.13650161 = sum of:
        0.13650161 = weight(_text_:indexing in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13650161 = score(doc=549,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.7177252 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

LCSH

Indexing

Subject

Indexing

0.021280928 = product of:
  0.06384278 = sum of:
    0.06384278 = product of:
      0.12768556 = sum of:
        0.12768556 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12768556 = score(doc=1656,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.67137045 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Efforts towards internationalization have become increasingly important in scientific environments. As for content-based indexing of scientific research data, however, standards leading to internationally coherent indexing which is vital for retrieval purposes are not yet sufficiently developed. Even concerning the concrete use of indexing instruments, launched by initiatives on an international scale, there are still no binding policies and guidelines. Against this backdrop, essential criteria which internationally applicable indexing systems should meet will be outlined. These will be illustrated through the multilingual European Language Social Science Thesaurus (ELSST), originally based on the UK Data Archive's (UKDA) Humanities and Social Science Electronic Thesaurus (HASSET) and ultimately developed by the Council of European Social Science Data Archives (CESSDA). Additionally, the general pros and cons of using international versus national indexing languages will be weighed using the ELSST and the Thesaurus for the Social Sciences (TSS) developed by GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences. In this light, the benefit of vocabulary crosswalks for supporting a combined use of international and national indexing systems will be discussed.

0.020983277 = product of:
  0.06294983 = sum of:
    0.06294983 = product of:
      0.12589966 = sum of:
        0.12589966 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12589966 = score(doc=1528,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6619802 = fieldWeight in 1528, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Statistical methods for automated document indexing are becoming an alternative to the manual assignment of keywords. We argue that the quality of the thesaurus used as a basis for indexing in regard to its ability to adequately cover the contents to be indexed and as a basis for the specific indexing method used is of crucial importance in automatic indexing. We present an interactive tool for thesaurus evaluation that is based on a combination of statistical measures and appropriate visualisation techniques that supports the detection of potential problems in a thesaurus. We describe the methods used and show that the tool supports the detection and correction of errors, leading to a better indexing result.

0.018958557 = product of:
  0.05687567 = sum of:
    0.05687567 = product of:
      0.11375134 = sum of:
        0.11375134 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11375134 = score(doc=6869,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.59810436 = fieldWeight in 6869, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

PRECIS

Documents / Subject indexing / Thesauri / Construction

Subject

Documents / Subject indexing / Thesauri / Construction

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 7141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=7141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 7141, 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=7141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Guide for source indexing and abstracting engineering literature. Ed.: F.Y. Speight

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 7907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=7907,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 7907, 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=7907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since the end of the 1980s, Concordia University Archives in Quebec, Canada, has indexed the minutes of the meetings of the institution's Board of Governors. A thesaurus and name authority file have been developed to support the indexing activities. Presents several theoretical concepts associated with indexing: thesaurus; authority control; content analysis; and content representation. Details the indexing tasks involved. Offers examples, combining theory and practice, demonstrating that, even with minimal resources, an indexing system can be introduced in any institution

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=138,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 138, 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=138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the concept of descriptor equivalence, with its 2 subcomponents of dictionary equivalence and indexing equivalence, in the context of the compatibility of differnt thesauri used in bilingual indexing. In multilingual indexing and searching, the equivalence relationship between terms means either that all equal terms are descriptors or that only one of the terms is selected for the descriptor and users are directed with USE refrences to use it instead of the other potential terms. Discusses these issues with particular reference to the LUASPORT study: a study of the compatibility of the Finnish language sports thesaurus (LUAS) with the Canadian Sport Thesauri (SPORT) in terms of compatibility of subject descriptors. In LUASPORT, LUAS was the source thesaurus and SPORT was the target thesaurus

0.018575516 = product of:
  0.055726547 = sum of:
    0.055726547 = product of:
      0.11145309 = sum of:
        0.11145309 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11145309 = score(doc=5292,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 5292, 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=5292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on the development of a thesaurus by Engineering Information, Inc. for use in indexing its databases. The concept in the former, highly precoordinate, indexing vocabulary were converted into postcoodinate descriptors, and a full set of thesaural relationships developed. Issues to be resolved in developing the vocabulary included the degree of postcoordination that was appropriate, the need to make the thesaurus usable with retrospective indexing that could not be converted and the demands on in-house staff during the development and conversion process

0.017985666 = product of:
  0.053956997 = sum of:
    0.053956997 = product of:
      0.10791399 = sum of:
        0.10791399 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10791399 = score(doc=2700,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5674116 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.016253578 = product of:
  0.04876073 = sum of:
    0.04876073 = product of:
      0.09752146 = sum of:
        0.09752146 = weight(_text_:indexing in 8201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09752146 = score(doc=8201,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 8201, 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=8201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the compilation of a subject thesaurus to provide a controlled vocabulary for indexing the New South Wales Government Printing Office's collection of historical photographs. Discusses the use of interactive videodiscs for preserving, presenting and retrieving pictorial collections and describes the software, online access, and data entry. Considers the development of the subject thesaurus and outlines 3 approaches that might be used by institutions faced with describing and indexing a collection of photographs. Discusses some possible authorities for subject analysis of pictorial materials. Describes the building process focusing on compilation and maintenance, classes excluded, strucutre of the thesaurus and the question of publication

0.016086869 = product of:
  0.048260607 = sum of:
    0.048260607 = product of:
      0.09652121 = sum of:
        0.09652121 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09652121 = score(doc=5202,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 5202, 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=5202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article, we report research on an algorithmic approach to alleviating search uncertainty in a large information space. Grounded on object filtering, automatic indexing, and co-occurence analysis, we performed a large-scale experiment using a parallel supercomputer (SGI Power Challenge) to analyze 400.000+ abstracts in an INSPEC computer engineering collection. Two system-generated thesauri, one based on a combined object filtering and automatic indexing method, and the other based on automatic indexing only, were compaed with the human-generated INSPEC subject thesaurus. Our user evaluation revealed that the system-generated thesauri were better than the INSPEC thesaurus in 'concept recall', but in 'concept precision' the 3 thesauri were comparable. Our analysis also revealed that the terms suggested by the 3 thesauri were complementary and could be used to significantly increase 'variety' in search terms the thereby reduce search uncertainty