Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024581954 = product of:
  0.049163908 = sum of:
    0.049163908 = product of:
      0.098327816 = sum of:
        0.098327816 = weight(_text_:ii in 5683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098327816 = score(doc=5683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.3580803 = fieldWeight in 5683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Authority control: definition and international experience. Part II: Authority control for subjects"

0.024106542 = product of:
  0.048213083 = sum of:
    0.048213083 = product of:
      0.09642617 = sum of:
        0.09642617 = weight(_text_:22 in 4506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09642617 = score(doc=4506,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4506, 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=4506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8.10.2000 11:52:22

0.023176087 = product of:
  0.046352174 = sum of:
    0.046352174 = product of:
      0.09270435 = sum of:
        0.09270435 = weight(_text_:ii in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09270435 = score(doc=3641,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.33760133 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The second Cranfield experiment (Cranfield II) in the mid-1960s challenged assumptions held by librarians for nearly a century, namely, that the objective of providing subject access was to bring together all materials an a given topic and that the achieving of this objective required vocabulary control in the form of an index language. The results of Cranfield II were replicated by other retrieval experiments quick to follow its lead and increasing support was given to the opinion that natural language information systems could perform at least as effectively, and certainly more economically, than those employing index languages. When the results of empirical research dramatically counter conventional wisdom, an obvious course is to question the validity of the research and, in the case of retrieval experiments, this eventually happened. Retrieval experiments were criticized for their artificiality, their unrepresentative sampies, and their problematic definitions-particularly the definition of relevance. In the minds of some, at least, the relative merits of natural languages vs. indexing languages continued to be an unresolved issue. As with many eitherlor options, a seemingly safe course to follow is to opt for "both," and indeed there seems to be an increasing amount of counsel advising a combination of natural language and index language search capabilities. One strong voice offering such counsel is that of Robert Fugmann, a chemist by training, a theoretician by predilection, and, currently, a practicing information scientist at Hoechst AG, Frankfurt/Main. This selection from his writings sheds light an the capabilities and limitations of both kinds of indexing. Its special significance lies in the fact that its arguments are based not an empirical but an rational grounds. Fugmann's major argument starts from the observation that in natural language there are essentially two different kinds of concepts: 1) individual concepts, repre sented by names of individual things (e.g., the name of the town Augsburg), and 2) general concepts represented by names of classes of things (e.g., pesticides). Individual concepts can be represented in language simply and succinctly, often by a single string of alphanumeric characters; general concepts, an the other hand, can be expressed in a multiplicity of ways. The word pesticides refers to the concept of pesticides, but also referring to this concept are numerous circumlocutions, such as "Substance X was effective against pests." Because natural language is capable of infinite variety, we cannot predict a priori the manifold ways a general concept, like pesticides, will be represented by any given author. It is this lack of predictability that limits natural language retrieval and causes poor precision and recall. Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of an index language ls that it is a tool for representational predictability.

0.019481027 = product of:
  0.038962055 = sum of:
    0.038962055 = product of:
      0.07792411 = sum of:
        0.07792411 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07792411 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93

0.017218959 = product of:
  0.034437917 = sum of:
    0.034437917 = product of:
      0.068875834 = sum of:
        0.068875834 = weight(_text_:22 in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068875834 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 6089, 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=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.11-22

0.014339473 = product of:
  0.028678946 = sum of:
    0.028678946 = product of:
      0.057357892 = sum of:
        0.057357892 = weight(_text_:ii in 3639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057357892 = score(doc=3639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.20888017 = fieldWeight in 3639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Very interesting experimental work was done by Douglas Foskett and other British classificationists during the fifteen-year period following the end of World War II. The research was effective in demonstrating that it was possible to make very sophisticated classification systems for virtually any subject-systems suitable for experts and for the general user needing a detailed subject classification. The success of these special systems led to consideration of the possibility of putting them together to form a new general classification system. To do such a thing would require a general, overall framework of some kind, since systems limited to a special subject are easier to construct because one does not have to worry about including all of the pertinent facets needed for a general system. Individual subject classifications do not automatically coalesce into a general pattern. For example, what is central to one special classification might be fringe in another or in several others. Fringe terminologies may not coincide in terms of logical relationships. Homographs and homonyms may not rear their ugly heads until attempts at merger are made. Foskett points out that even identifying a thing in terms of a noun or verb involves different assumptions in approach. For these and other reasons, it made sense to look for existing work in fields where the necessary framework already existed. Foskett found the rudiments of such a system in a number of writings, culminating in a logical system called "integrative levels" suggested by James K. Feibleman (q.v.). This system consists of a set of advancing conceptual levels relating to the apparent organization of nature. These levels are irreversible in that if one once reached a certain level there was no going back. Foskett points out that with higher levels and greater complexity in structure the analysis needed to establish valid levels becomes much more difficult, especially as Feibleman stipulates that a higher level must not be reducible to a lower one. (That is, one cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.) Foskett is optimistic to the extent of suggesting that references from level to level be made upwards, with inductive reasoning, a system used by Derek Austin (q.v.) for making reference structures in PRECIS. Though the method of integrative levels so far has not been used successfully with the byproducts of human social behavior and thought, so much has been learned about these areas during the past twenty years that Foskett may yet be correct in his optimism. Foskett's name has Jong been associated with classification in the social sciences. As with many of the British classificationists included in this book, he has been a member of the Classification Research Group for about forty years. Like the others, he continues to contribute to the field.

0.012053271 = product of:
  0.024106542 = sum of:
    0.024106542 = product of:
      0.048213083 = sum of:
        0.048213083 = weight(_text_:22 in 2245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048213083 = score(doc=2245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2245, 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=2245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.012053271 = product of:
  0.024106542 = sum of:
    0.024106542 = product of:
      0.048213083 = sum of:
        0.048213083 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048213083 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:45:57

0.012053271 = product of:
  0.024106542 = sum of:
    0.024106542 = product of:
      0.048213083 = sum of:
        0.048213083 = weight(_text_:22 in 4792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048213083 = score(doc=4792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4792, 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=4792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.010331375 = product of:
  0.02066275 = sum of:
    0.02066275 = product of:
      0.0413255 = sum of:
        0.0413255 = weight(_text_:22 in 2246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0413255 = score(doc=2246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2246, 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=2246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.008609479 = product of:
  0.017218959 = sum of:
    0.017218959 = product of:
      0.034437917 = sum of:
        0.034437917 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034437917 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2021 14:24:32

0.0060266354 = product of:
  0.012053271 = sum of:
    0.012053271 = product of:
      0.024106542 = sum of:
        0.024106542 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024106542 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.