Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.049163964 = product of:
  0.14749189 = sum of:
    0.14749189 = weight(_text_:citation in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14749189 = score(doc=837,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.62816036 = fieldWeight in 837, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=837)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Within informetry publication and citation analyses stand out. The former are defined as quantitative studies of the content of the bibliographic fields, e.g. authors, in a defined document collection, the latter deal with the documents' literature lists and can be citations fron or to a document. Gives examples of how the RANK command in DIALOG can be used to count information units in phrase indexed fields enabling ranked lists of publications to be produced. DIALOG is best for analysing citations 'from'. A citation analysis 'to' is used for research evaluation, although it is agreed that it can only supplement, not supplant peer review. The Danish Library School's Centre for Informetric Studies researches online analysis and other other informetric questions

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Publication and citation analysis

0.012324194 = product of:
  0.036972582 = sum of:
    0.036972582 = product of:
      0.073945165 = sum of:
        0.073945165 = weight(_text_:index in 7330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073945165 = score(doc=7330,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 7330, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines how far automation cluster analysis and association testing are relevant methods for smaller libraries in construction of search thesauri. Using WORDSTAR, a simple form of cluster analysis was tested, with satisfactory results in that the index terms formed clusters of a suitable size. The association test was used to elicit from users' natural language terms which can be used in the search thesaurus as entrance vocabulary. The test showed that users associated very differently in relation to the same stimuli words, with low overlap with terms used in the system's indexing. The results confirmed the need for better feedback. Concludes that while neither method can be used alone, a search thesauri which combine terms from the indexes and from users can be a powerful tool

0.010563595 = product of:
  0.031690784 = sum of:
    0.031690784 = product of:
      0.06338157 = sum of:
        0.06338157 = weight(_text_:index in 7329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06338157 = score(doc=7329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 7329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Comments on Statens Bibliotekstjeneste's 1993 report on subject data in research libraries. Despite the failure in the 70s to create a common classification system using notation, the report recommends just such a system but using verbal expressions. It assumes that subject indexing problems can be solved by reusing other libraries' key words and that user groups are homogeneous and able to use the systems thus leaving libraries as professionals intermediaries without responsibility. Uses the experiences of the author's library, the Environmental Library, which itself indexes all material, and gives 6 examples of how other institutions index the same publications differently, to show that the simple recycling system which the report recommends cannot be used there. Rather than spend recources on developing electronic catalogues, as the report recommends, funds should be used to help research libraries construct systems targeting their specific user group