Search (196 results, page 1 of 10)

0.08146443 = product of:
  0.16292886 = sum of:
    0.16292886 = sum of:
      0.114715785 = weight(_text_:ii in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.114715785 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050836053 = queryNorm
          0.41776034 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.048213083 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048213083 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050836053 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

0.06728427 = product of:
  0.13456854 = sum of:
    0.13456854 = product of:
      0.40370563 = sum of:
        0.40370563 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40370563 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4309886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.05818888 = product of:
  0.11637776 = sum of:
    0.11637776 = sum of:
      0.08193985 = weight(_text_:ii in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08193985 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050836053 = queryNorm
          0.29840025 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
      0.034437917 = weight(_text_:22 in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034437917 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050836053 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 330, 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=330)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Nur noch Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz und Information Assessment? Doch gerade die Abschottung von anderen Disziplinen verstärkt die Isolation des "kleinen Faches" Informationswissenschaft in der Scientific Community. So bleiben ihr als letzte "eigenständige" Forschungsrandgebiete nur die, die Wolf Rauch als Keynote Speaker bereits in seinem einführenden, historisch-genetischen Vortrag zur Lage der Informationswissenschaft auf der ISI 2021 benannt hat: "Wenn die universitäre Informationswissenschaft (zumindest in Europa) wohl kaum eine Chance hat, im Bereich der Entwicklung von Systemen und Anwendungen wieder an die Spitze der Entwicklung vorzustoßen, bleiben ihr doch Gebiete, in denen ihr Beitrag in der kommenden Entwicklungsphase dringend erforderlich sein wird: Informationsethik, Informationskompetenz, Information Assessment" (Wolf Rauch: Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist; in: Thomas Schmidt; Christian Wolff (Eds): Information between Data and Knowledge. Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft 74, Regensburg, 2021, Seiten 20-22 - siehe auch die Rezeption des Beitrages von Rauch durch Johannes Elia Panskus, Was aus der Informationswissenschaft geworden ist. Sie ist in der Realität angekommen, in: Open Password, 17. März 2021). Das ist alles? Ernüchternd.

0.05382742 = product of:
  0.10765484 = sum of:
    0.10765484 = product of:
      0.32296452 = sum of:
        0.32296452 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32296452 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4309886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.049163908 = product of:
  0.098327816 = sum of:
    0.098327816 = product of:
      0.19665563 = sum of:
        0.19665563 = weight(_text_:ii in 7995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19665563 = score(doc=7995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.7161606 = fieldWeight in 7995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Textgrundlage: Funk & Wagnalls new encyclopedia. Vol.1-29; American heritage concise dictionary; Roget's II: The new thesaurus

0.040969923 = product of:
  0.08193985 = sum of:
    0.08193985 = product of:
      0.1638797 = sum of:
        0.1638797 = weight(_text_:ii in 4327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1638797 = score(doc=4327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.5968005 = fieldWeight in 4327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Part I. Analyzing the state of the art - What is semantic search? Part II. The proposal - An ontology-based IR model - Semantic retrieval on the Web Part III. Extensions - Semantic knowledge gateway - Coping with knowledge incompleteness

0.040969923 = product of:
  0.08193985 = sum of:
    0.08193985 = product of:
      0.1638797 = sum of:
        0.1638797 = weight(_text_:ii in 5592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1638797 = score(doc=5592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.5968005 = fieldWeight in 5592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.040558152 = product of:
  0.081116304 = sum of:
    0.081116304 = product of:
      0.16223261 = sum of:
        0.16223261 = weight(_text_:ii in 1568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16223261 = score(doc=1568,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.5908023 = fieldWeight in 1568, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Emerging standards in knowledge representation and organization are preparing the way for distributed vocabulary support in Internet search services. NetLab researchers are exploring several innovative solutions for searching and browsing in the subject-based Internet gateway, Electronic Engineering Library, Sweden (EELS). The implementation of the EELS service is described, specifically, the generation of the robot-gathered database 'All' engineering and the automated application of the Ei thesaurus and classification scheme. NetLab and OCLC researchers are collaborating to investigate advanced solutions to automated classification in the DESIRE II context. A plan for furthering the development of distributed vocabulary support in Internet search services is offered.

0.034764133 = product of:
  0.06952827 = sum of:
    0.06952827 = product of:
      0.13905653 = sum of:
        0.13905653 = weight(_text_:ii in 1668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13905653 = score(doc=1668,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.506402 = fieldWeight in 1668, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This working paper describes the creation of a test database to carry out the automatic classification tasks of the DESIRE II work package D3.6a on. It is an improved version of NetLab's existing "All" Engineering database created after a comparative study of the outcome of two different approaches to collecting the documents. These two methods were selected from seven different general methodologies to build robot-generated subject indices, presented in this paper. We found a surprisingly low overlap between the Engineering link collections we used as seed pages for the robot and subsequently an even more surprisingly low overlap between the resources collected by the two different approaches. That inspite of using basically the same services to start the harvesting process from. A intellectual evaluation of the contents of both databases showed almost exactly the same percentage of relevant documents (77%), indicating that the main difference between those aproaches was the coverage of the resulting database.

0.033642136 = product of:
  0.06728427 = sum of:
    0.06728427 = product of:
      0.20185281 = sum of:
        0.20185281 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20185281 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4309886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.033642136 = product of:
  0.06728427 = sum of:
    0.06728427 = product of:
      0.20185281 = sum of:
        0.20185281 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20185281 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4309886 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.03277594 = product of:
  0.06555188 = sum of:
    0.06555188 = product of:
      0.13110375 = sum of:
        0.13110375 = weight(_text_:ii in 1667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13110375 = score(doc=1667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.4774404 = fieldWeight in 1667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03277594 = product of:
  0.06555188 = sum of:
    0.06555188 = product of:
      0.13110375 = sum of:
        0.13110375 = weight(_text_:ii in 3126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13110375 = score(doc=3126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.4774404 = fieldWeight in 3126, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seit über zwei Jahren ist die Einführung in die Korpuslinguistik online! Und sie wird rege benutzt, so z.B. in Veranstaltungen an den Universitäten Heidelberg (Ekkehard Felder), Jena (Peter Gallmann), Zürich (Christa Dürscheid), Kiel (Ulrike Mosel), Leipzig (Uwe Quasthoff), am Institut für Computerlinguistik in Zürich (Simon Clematide); die Website von COSMAS II des IDS, das Korpus Südtirol, die LinseLinks, der Gateway to Corpus Linguistics und die Wikipedia verweisen darauf.

0.028678946 = product of:
  0.057357892 = sum of:
    0.057357892 = product of:
      0.114715785 = sum of:
        0.114715785 = weight(_text_:ii in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114715785 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.41776034 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Following a recent idea, to measure fame by the number of \Google hits found in a search on the WWW, we study the relation between fame (\Google hits) and merit (number of papers posted on an electronic archive) for a random group of scientists in condensed matter and statistical physics. Our findings show that fame and merit in science are linearly related, and that the probability distribution for a certain level of fame falls off exponentially. This is in sharp contrast with the original findings about WW II ace pilots, for which fame is exponentially related to merit (number of downed planes), and the probability of fame decays in power-law fashion. Other groups in our study show similar patterns of fame as for ace pilots.

0.028678946 = product of:
  0.057357892 = sum of:
    0.057357892 = product of:
      0.114715785 = sum of:
        0.114715785 = weight(_text_:ii in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114715785 = score(doc=544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.41776034 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper will concentrate on some major issues regarding the potential of UDC and the current controversy about its use UDC in Romania: i) the importance of hierarchical structures in controlled vocabularies with a direct impact on improved information retrieval given by the browsing function which enables visualizing the hierarchies in subject areas rather than just locating a particular topic; ii) the lack of popularity of the UDC as an indexing and information retrieval language among its users be they librarians or end users of library OPACs; and iii) the situation of UDC teachers and teaching in Romanian universities.

0.028678946 = product of:
  0.057357892 = sum of:
    0.057357892 = product of:
      0.114715785 = sum of:
        0.114715785 = weight(_text_:ii in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114715785 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.41776034 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.028678946 = product of:
  0.057357892 = sum of:
    0.057357892 = product of:
      0.114715785 = sum of:
        0.114715785 = weight(_text_:ii in 5665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114715785 = score(doc=5665,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.41776034 = fieldWeight in 5665, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. die Fortsetzung: Barth, T.: Inverse Panopticon: Digitalisierung & Transhumanismus [Transhumanismus II]. [25. Januar 2020]. Unter: https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Inverse-Panopticon-Digitalisierung-Transhumanismus-4645668.html?seite=all.

0.028384795 = product of:
  0.05676959 = sum of:
    0.05676959 = product of:
      0.11353918 = sum of:
        0.11353918 = weight(_text_:ii in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11353918 = score(doc=1177,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.4134755 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the second part of an analysis of the methods that have been used to achieve or improve interoperability among metadata schemas and their applications in order to facilitate the conversion and exchange of metadata and to enable cross-domain metadata harvesting and federated searches. From a methodological point of view, implementing interoperability may be considered at different levels of operation: schema level (discussed in Part I of the article), record level (discussed in Part II of the article), and repository level (also discussed in Part II). The results of efforts to improve interoperability may be observed from different perspectives as well, including element-based and value-based approaches. As discussed in Part I of this study, the results of efforts to improve interoperability can be observed at different levels: 1. Schema level - Efforts are focused on the elements of the schemas, being independent of any applications. The results usually appear as derived element sets or encoded schemas, crosswalks, application profiles, and element registries. 2. Record level - Efforts are intended to integrate the metadata records through the mapping of the elements according to the semantic meanings of these elements. Common results include converted records and new records resulting from combining values of existing records. 3. Repository level - With harvested or integrated records from varying sources, efforts at this level focus on mapping value strings associated with particular elements (e.g., terms associated with subject or format elements). The results enable cross-collection searching. In the following sections, we will continue to analyze interoperability efforts and methodologies, focusing on the record level and the repository level. It should be noted that the models to be discussed in this article are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes, within a particular project, more than one method may be used.

0.028384795 = product of:
  0.05676959 = sum of:
    0.05676959 = product of:
      0.11353918 = sum of:
        0.11353918 = weight(_text_:ii in 3573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11353918 = score(doc=3573,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2745971 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.4134755 = fieldWeight in 3573, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4016213 = idf(docFreq=541, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Subject access to information has been the predominant approach of users to satisfy their information needs. Research demonstrates that the integration of controlled vocabulary information with an information retrieval system helps users perform more effective subject searches. This integration becomes possible when subject authority data (information about subjects from authority files) are linked to bibliographic files and are made available to users. The purpose of authority control is to ensure consistency in representing a value-a name of a person, a place name, or a subject term-in the elements used as access points in information retrieval. For example, "World War, 1939-1945" has been established as an authorized subject heading in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). When using LCSH, in cataloging or indexing, all publications about World War II are assigned the established heading regardless of whether a publication refers to the war as the "European War, 1939-1945", "Second World War", "World War 2", "World War II", "WWII", "World War Two", or "2nd World War." The synonymous expressions are referred to by the authorized heading. This ensures that all publications about World War II can be retrieved by and displayed under the same subject heading, either in an individual institution's own catalog or database or in a union catalog that contains bibliographic records from a number of individual libraries or databases. In almost all large bibliographic databases, authority control is achieved manually or semi-automatically by means of an authority file. The file contains records of headings or access points - names, titles, or subjects - that have been authorized for use in bibliographic records. In addition to ensuring consistency in subject representation, a subject authority record also records and maintains semantic relationships among subject terms and/or their labels. Records in a subject authority file are connected through semantic relationships, which may be expressed statically in subject authority records or generated dynamically according to the specific needs (e.g., presenting the broader and narrower terms) of printed or online display of thesauri, subject headings lists, classification schemes, and other knowledge organization systems.

0.027550334 = product of:
  0.05510067 = sum of:
    0.05510067 = product of:
      0.11020134 = sum of:
        0.11020134 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11020134 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050836053 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:26:34