Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

0.15487055 = product of:
  0.35398984 = sum of:
    0.07706236 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07706236 = score(doc=4058,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.42874208 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
    0.048561215 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048561215 = score(doc=4058,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.34034526 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
    0.031152776 = product of:
      0.06230555 = sum of:
        0.06230555 = weight(_text_:rules in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06230555 = score(doc=4058,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.38551235 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.057794057 = weight(_text_:anglo in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057794057 = score(doc=4058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485519 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.3836813 = idf(docFreq=202, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.2821215 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.3836813 = idf(docFreq=202, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
    0.028552677 = weight(_text_:american in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028552677 = score(doc=4058,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26097468 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
    0.048561215 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048561215 = score(doc=4058,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.34034526 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
    0.06230555 = weight(_text_:rules in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06230555 = score(doc=4058,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.38551235 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
  0.4375 = coord(7/16)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: Blake, V.L.P.: Forging the Anglo-American Cataloging Alliance: descriptive cataloging, 1830-1908; M. Carpenter, M.: The original 73 rules of the British Museum: a preliminary analysis; De Rijk Spanhoff, E.: Principle issues: catalog paradigms, old and new; Mutula, S.M., Tsvakai, M.: Historical perspectives of cataloguing and classification; Barber, E.E., Tripaldi, N.M., Pisano, S.L.: Facts, approaches, and reflections an classification in the history of Argentine librarianship; MirandaArguedas, A.: Standardization of technical processes in Central American Libraries; Steinhagen, EN.: Historical perspective of a union catalog in Chile: authorities and periodicals; Liu, S.Q., Shen, Z.G.: The development of cataloging in China; Popst, H.: The development of descriptive cataloging in Germany; Croissant, C.R.: RAK or AACR2? : the current discussion in Germany an cataloging rules; Soltani, P.: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification in Iran; Takawashi, T.: Cataloging in Japan: relationship between Japanese and Western cataloging rules; Martinez-Arellano, F.F.: Cataloging and classification history in Mexico; Carter, R.C.: Three book collectors of imperial Spain; Lincoln, T.: Cultural reassertion of Alaska native languages and cultures: libraries' responses; Descriptive standards and the archival profession; Shuler, J.A.: Foundations of government information and bibliographic control in the United States: 1789-1900; Zhou, L.: Characteristics of material organization and classification in the Kinsey Institute Library; Goldberg, J.E.: Development of a universal law classification: a retrospective an Library of Congress Class K; Lubas, R.L.: The evolution of bibliographic control of maps; Guthrie II, L.S.: Monastic cataloging and classification and the beginnings of Class B at the Library of Congress; Bradley, C.J.: Classifying and cataloguing music in American Libraries: a historical overview; Haddad, P.: Cataloging and classification of Pacific and Asian language materials at the National Library of Australia; Russell, B.M.: Description and access in rare books cataloging: a historical survey; Waithe, M.E., Vintro, M.E.: Posthumously plagiarizing Oliva Sabuco: an appeal to cataloging librarians; Walravens, H.: Serials cataloguing in Germany: the historical development; Smiraglia, R.P.: The history of The Work in the modern catalog.

0.06627045 = product of:
  0.21206543 = sum of:
    0.038930476 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 3625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038930476 = score(doc=3625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.21659255 = fieldWeight in 3625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3625)
    0.047213413 = product of:
      0.094426826 = sum of:
        0.094426826 = weight(_text_:rules in 3625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094426826 = score(doc=3625,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.58426106 = fieldWeight in 3625, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.020399017 = weight(_text_:american in 3625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020399017 = score(doc=3625,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.1864493 = fieldWeight in 3625, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3625)
    0.094426826 = weight(_text_:rules in 3625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094426826 = score(doc=3625,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.58426106 = fieldWeight in 3625, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3625)
    0.011095698 = product of:
      0.022191396 = sum of:
        0.022191396 = weight(_text_:ed in 3625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022191396 = score(doc=3625,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.19446814 = fieldWeight in 3625, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3125 = coord(5/16)

Abstract

The publication in 1876 of Rules for a Printed Catalogue by Charies A. Cutter (1837-1903) was a landmark in the literature of library science. This code provided the basis for all subsequent codes of descriptive cataloging and catapulted the dictionary catalog into the position of being the predominant form of catalog in American libraries in years to come. Cutter's rules for subject entry were the first and, in essence, still the only codification of the alphabetical subject catalog. These Rules represented the culmination of many years' experience in compiling the dictionary catalog of the Boston Athenaeum (published in 18741882) during Cutter's tenure as its librarian from 1869 to 1893. Prior to the advent of the dictionary catalog, the popular method for organizing subject entries in a catalog was the classified arrangement, in the form of either the classed catalog (usually based an a particular classification scheme) or the alphabetico-classed catalog, in which the primary objective was subject collocation. Subject entries were arranged systematically and logically according to their subject relationships. In the alphabetical subject arrangement in the dictionary catalog, an the other hand, the primary objective is what Cutter calls the "facility of reference"; in other words, subjects can be located quickly in the catalog because they are listed directly under their specific names in an alphabetical order. Unlike the classed catalog which requires an accompanying index, the alphabetical subject catalog combines the functions of the subject entries and index in one alphabetical sequence, even though at the expense of subject collocation.
Some of the advantages of the classed catalog were then reintroduced into the alphabetical subject catalog through see also references and, to some extent, by the use of inverted headings. Although never officially acknowledged, Cutter's principles provided the philosophical underpinnings for the Library of Congress and the Sears subject headings systems. His principles of common usage, specific entry, uniform heading, and syndetic structure have been reflected in the Library of Congress Subject Headings practice and reiterated by David Judson Haykin (q.v.) in his exposition of the Library of Congress system. Cutter's definition of "specific entry" has been frequently quoted as the basis of the alphabetical subject catalog. Because Cutter's Rules are no longer in print, the following excerpt contains all the rules an subject entry from the fourth edition of Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. These rules, first published over a hundred years ago, do not address all the problems encountered in subject analysis in modern times. Nonetheless, many of his ideas are still valid and manifested in subject cataloging practice in American libraries today. Moreover, as A. C. Foskett comments, "his Rules can still be read with profit (and, more unusual in such works, pleasure) today."

Footnote

Original in: Cutter, C.A.: Rules for a dictionary catalog. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office 1904, S.66-82

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.035508074 = product of:
  0.11362583 = sum of:
    0.033013538 = weight(_text_:author in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033013538 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.21322623 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
    0.017687442 = weight(_text_:26 in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017687442 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.15607277 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
    0.017986061 = product of:
      0.035972122 = sum of:
        0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035972122 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035972122 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
    0.008966677 = product of:
      0.017933354 = sum of:
        0.017933354 = weight(_text_:ed in 3630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017933354 = score(doc=3630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.15715398 = fieldWeight in 3630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3125 = coord(5/16)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Date

3. 7.2005 10:26:00

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.035508074 = product of:
  0.11362583 = sum of:
    0.033013538 = weight(_text_:author in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033013538 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.21322623 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
    0.017687442 = weight(_text_:26 in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017687442 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.15607277 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
    0.017986061 = product of:
      0.035972122 = sum of:
        0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035972122 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035972122 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
    0.008966677 = product of:
      0.017933354 = sum of:
        0.017933354 = weight(_text_:ed in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017933354 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.15715398 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3125 = coord(5/16)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Date

3. 7.2005 10:26:14

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.03057408 = product of:
  0.12229632 = sum of:
    0.033013538 = weight(_text_:author in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033013538 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.21322623 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
    0.017986061 = product of:
      0.035972122 = sum of:
        0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035972122 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035972122 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
    0.035324603 = sum of:
      0.017933354 = weight(_text_:ed in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017933354 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032090448 = queryNorm
          0.15715398 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
      0.017391251 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017391251 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032090448 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)

Abstract

Julia Pettee's contribution to classification theory came about as part of her work an subject headings. Pettee (1872-1967) was for many years librarian of the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was best known for the classification system she developed for the seminary and as the author of the book Subiect Headings. She was one of the first to call attention to the fact that there was a classification system in subject headings. It was, as she put it, "completely concealed when scattered through the alphabetical sequence" (p. 98). On the other hand, she recognized that an index entry was a pointing device and existed to show users specific terms. Index terms, unlike subject headings, could be manipulated, inverted, repeated, and stated in as many words as might be desired. The subject heading, she reiterated, had in it "some idea of classification," but was designed to pull together like material and, unlike the index term, would have limited capability for supplying access by way of synonyms, catchwords, or other associative forms. It is interesting that she also thought of the subject heading in context as forming a three-dimensional system. Logically this is the case whenever one attempts to reach beyond the conventional hierarchy as described an a plane surface, and, in fact, thought out as if the classification were an a plane surface. Pettee described this dimension variously as names "reaching up and over the surface ... hands clasp[ing] in the air" from an individual term (pp. 99-100). Or, in other context, as the mapping of "the many third-dimensional criss-crossing relationships of subject headings." (p. 103) Investigations following Pettee's insight have shown the nature and the degree of the classification latent in subject headings and also in the cross-references of all indexing systems using cross-references of the associative type ("see also" or equivalent terminology). More importantly, study of this type of connection has revealed jumps in logic and meaning caused by homographs or homonyms and resulting in false connections in classification. Standardized rules for making thesauri have prevented some of the more glaring non sequiturs, but much more still needs to be done. The whole area of "related terms", for example, needs to be brought under control, especially in terms of classification mapping.

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.02803683 = product of:
  0.22429463 = sum of:
    0.11214732 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11214732 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.7859937 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
    0.11214732 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11214732 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.7859937 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

0.013409688 = product of:
  0.107277505 = sum of:
    0.08934415 = weight(_text_:2nd in 7725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08934415 = score(doc=7725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18010403 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.49606967 = fieldWeight in 7725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7725)
    0.017933354 = product of:
      0.035866708 = sum of:
        0.035866708 = weight(_text_:ed in 7725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035866708 = score(doc=7725,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.31430796 = fieldWeight in 7725, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7725)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

The 2nd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research was held in Elsinore, Denmark on 14-18.9.1964. That conference is revisited and compared with the present ISKO '94 conference on Knowledge Organization and Quality Management to show how much progress has been made, how many old problems still await solutions, and why the fields of work called Classification Research and Knowledge Management have much in common

Source

Knowledge organization and quality management: Proc. of the 3rd International ISKO Conference, 20-24 June 1994, Copenhagen, Denmark. Ed.: H. Albrechtsen et al

0.010618363 = product of:
  0.0849469 = sum of:
    0.03397876 = product of:
      0.10193627 = sum of:
        0.10193627 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10193627 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27206317 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.050968137 = product of:
      0.10193627 = sum of:
        0.10193627 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10193627 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27206317 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Ergebnis einer Umfrage aus dem Frühjahr 1993. A. Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken: Versandt wurde der Fragebogen an die Mitglieder der Sektion IV des DBV. Fragen: (1a) Um welchen Bestand handelt es sich, der sachlich erschlossen wird? (1b) Wie groß ist dieser Bestand? (1c) Wird dieser Bestand vollständig oder nur in Auswahl (einzelne Fächer, Lehrbücher, Dissertationen o.ä.) sachlich erschlossen? (1d) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (2) Auf welche Art wird der Bestand zur Zeit sachlich erschlossen? (3a) Welche Klassifikation wird angewendet? (3b) Gibt es alphabetisches SyK-Register bzw. einen Zugriff auf die Klassenbeschreibungen? (3c) Gibt es ergänzende Schlüssel für die Aspekte Ort, Zeit, Form? (4) Falls Sie einen SWK führen (a) nach welchem Regelwerk? (b) Gibt es ein genormtes Vokabular oder einen Thesaurus (ggf. nur für bestimmte Fächer)? (5) In welcher Form existieren die Sachkataloge? (6) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. in einem Verbund beteiligt? [Nein: 79%] (7) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 46%] (8) Welche sachlichen Suchmöglichkeiten gibt es für Benutzer? (9) Sind zukünftige Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Ja: 73%]. - B. Öffentliche Bibliotheken: Die Umfrage richtete sich an alle ÖBs der Sektionen I, II und III des DBV. Fragen: (1) Welche Sachkataloge führen Sie? (2) Welche Klassifikationen (Systematiken) liegen dem SyK zugrunde? [ASB: 242; KAB: 333; SfB: 4 (???); SSD: 11; Berliner: 18] (3) Führen Sie ein eigenes Schlagwort-Register zum SyK bzw. zur Klassifikation (Systematik)? (4) Führen Sie den SWK nach ...? [RSWK: 132 (= ca. 60%) anderen Regeln: 93] (5) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (6) In welcher Form existiern die Sachkataloge? (7) In welchem Umfang wird der Bestand erschlossen? (8) Welche Signaturen verwenden Sie? (9) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. einem Verbund, beteiligt? [Nein: 96%] (10) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 70%] (11) Woher beziehen Sie diese Fremdleistungen? (12) Verfügen Sie über ein Online-Katalogsystem mit OPAC? [Ja: 78; Nein: 614] (13) Sind zukünftig Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Nein: 458; Ja: 237]; RESÜMEE für ÖB: "(i) Einführung von EDV-Katalogen bleibt auch in den 90er Jahren ein Thema, (ii) Der Aufbau von SWK wird in vielen Bibliotheken in Angriff genommen, dabei spielt die Fremddatenübernahme eine entscheidende Rolle, (iii) RSWK werden zunehmend angewandt, Nutzung der SWD auch für andere Regeln wirkt normierend, (iv) Große Bewegung auf dem 'Systematik-Markt' ist in absehbarer Zeit nicht zu erwarten, (v) Für kleinere Bibliotheken wird der Zettelkatalog auf absehbare Zeit noch die herrschende Katalogform sein, (vi) Der erhebliche Nachholbedarf in den neuen Bundesländern wird nur in einem größeren Zeitraum zu leisten sein. ??? SPEZIALBIBIOTHEKEN ???

0.0081977565 = product of:
  0.04372137 = sum of:
    0.015476512 = weight(_text_:26 in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015476512 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.13656367 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
    0.020399017 = weight(_text_:american in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020399017 = score(doc=3635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.1864493 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
    0.007845843 = product of:
      0.015691686 = sum of:
        0.015691686 = weight(_text_:ed in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015691686 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.13750973 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

The idea of computing with concepts as mathematicians manipulate variables in equations goes back at least as far as G. W. Leibniz (1663). Leibniz dreamed of a universal calculus, an ambiguity-free language, with which scholars could communicate ideas with mathematical precision. George Boole, in his investigation of the laws of thought, contributed to the realization of this idea by developing a calculus of classes (1847). A modern visionary who saw a practical application of Boole's work and further contributed to the idea of communicating by "computing" was Mortimer Taube (1910-1965), a member of the Library of Congress staff from 1944 to 1949 who later founded Documentation, Inc. He proposed communicating with a mechanized information store by combining concepts using the Boolean operators, AND, OR and NOT. The following selection contains one of the first presentations of a technique Taube called "coordinate indexing" and what later has come to be called "post coordinate indexing" or Boolean searching. This selection is interesting an three counts. It is interesting first of all because of its early date-1950. Though the idea of coordinate indexing had been anticipated in manual systems of the punched card sort, these systems were limited, relying for the most part an repeated application of the AND operator. To conceptualize the full power that could be achieved by Boolean search strategy in mechanized systems was an imaginative step forward. Second, the selection is interesting insofar as the idea of coordinate indexing is couched, indeed nearly hidden, in a somewhat ponderous essay an the compatibility of universal and special classifications and the merits of different methods of information organization. Ponderous though it is, the essay is worth a careful reading. The perspective it gives is enlightening, a reminder that the roots of information science reach far back into the bibliographic past. The third and perhaps most interesting aspect of this selection is that in it Taube looks beyond the technique of coordinate indexing to envisage its implications an bibliographic organization. (Now more than thirty years later we are still attempting to understand these implications.) What Taube saw was a new method of bibliographic organization, which, not ingenuously, he observed might seem almost bumptious in the face of a two thousand year history of organizing information. This "new" method was, however, being proposed elsewhere, albeit in different guise, by S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his school. It was the method of organizing information using abstract categories called fields or facets. These categories, unlike those used in the great traditional classifications, were not locked in procrustean hierarchical structures, but could be freely synthesized or combined in indexing or retrieval. In short, Taube's voice was among those at midcentury supporting the move from enumerative to synthetic subject approaches. The fact that it was an American voice and one especially weIl informed about bibliography and computers is perhaps what led Jesse Shera to refer to Taube as "the Melvil Dewey ... of midtwentieth century American Librarianship," one who was able "to weld successfully conventional librarianship and the then-emerging information science."

Date

3. 7.2005 13:26:00

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.0055614966 = product of:
  0.088983946 = sum of:
    0.088983946 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088983946 = score(doc=5517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.49506867 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Descriptive account of the rudimentary techniques used to organise documentation materials in the earliest libraries, covering Mesopotamia about 4.000 BC, for the creation of colophons, labels and catalogues; Egypt about 2.000 BC, for papyrus rolls with title at the end and labels in red ink; and classical Greece and Rome, for the catalogues in the library at Alexandria, and private and public libraries in Rome in the 1st century AD using classification by content

0.0049976474 = product of:
  0.03998118 = sum of:
    0.026531162 = weight(_text_:26 in 2674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026531162 = score(doc=2674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 2674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2674)
    0.013450016 = product of:
      0.026900033 = sum of:
        0.026900033 = weight(_text_:ed in 2674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026900033 = score(doc=2674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.23573098 = fieldWeight in 2674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Date

29. 8.2004 19:26:53

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.0048663095 = product of:
  0.07786095 = sum of:
    0.07786095 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07786095 = score(doc=2378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4331851 = fieldWeight in 2378, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2378)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

In the early 20th century, Paul Otlet carved out a role for bibliography and documentation as a force for positive social change. While his ideals appeared to be utopian to many of his contemporaries, his activism and vision foreshadowed the potential of the World Wide Web. This paper discusses the role that KO professionals could play in enhancing the positive social impact of the web of knowledge, and how our roles are shifting from the more passive role of descriptive cataloguers, to proactive designers of positive and productive knowledge environments.

0.0044218604 = product of:
  0.07074977 = sum of:
    0.07074977 = weight(_text_:26 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07074977 = score(doc=3952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.62429106 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Bücherei. 5(1938), S.26-33

0.004126692 = product of:
  0.066027075 = sum of:
    0.066027075 = weight(_text_:author in 7076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066027075 = score(doc=7076,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 7076, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7076)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

In the frame of an issue of the Documentaliste devoted to the history of information science in France, the author of this article looks at the development of the two main families of information languages, hierarchical and analytical ones and attempts to discern how and how much this evolution has been influenced by the elements of information searching systems, literature, indexers, designers, users, searching techniques and indexing techniques

0.003869128 = product of:
  0.061906047 = sum of:
    0.061906047 = weight(_text_:26 in 3942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061906047 = score(doc=3942,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.5462547 = fieldWeight in 3942, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3942)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Date

26. 7.1996 21:12:50

0.0036108557 = product of:
  0.05777369 = sum of:
    0.05777369 = weight(_text_:author in 5555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05777369 = score(doc=5555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 5555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5555)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The author provides an examination of how ideas about place and space have been used in thinking about the organization of knowledge. The spatial analogies of Paul Otlet (1868-1944) in relation to his overall vision are traditional and conventional. Notions of space, place, position, location, and movement are frequent in the work of other leading innovators (Martin Schrettinger, Melvil Dewey, Wilhelm Ostwald, Emanuel Goldberg, and Suzanne Briet) concerning specific practical aspects of knowledge organization. Otlet's spatial imagery is more original and more ingenious when applied to technical problems compared to his overall vision.

0.0033163952 = product of:
  0.053062323 = sum of:
    0.053062323 = weight(_text_:26 in 1510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053062323 = score(doc=1510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4682183 = fieldWeight in 1510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1510)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Series

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie: Sonderh.26

0.0025791824 = product of:
  0.04126692 = sum of:
    0.04126692 = weight(_text_:author in 5561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04126692 = score(doc=5561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 5561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5561)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The author discusses the architectural plans of the Mundaneum made in the 1930s by the Belgian modernist architect Maurice Heymans in the footsteps of Le Corbusier and in collaboration with Paul Otlet. The Mundaneum was the utopian concept of a world center for the accumulation, organization, and dissemination of knowledge, invented by the visionary encyclopedist and internationalist Paul Otlet. In Heymans's architecture, a complex architectural metaphor is created for the Mundaneum, conveying its hidden meaning as a center of initiation into synthesized knowledge. In particular, this article deconstructs the metaphorical architectural complex designed by Heymans and focuses on how the architectural spaces as designed by Heymans are structured in analogy to schemes for the organization of knowledge made by Otlet. In three different designs of the Mundaneum, the analogy is studied between, on the one hand, the architectural structure (designed by Heymans) and, on the other hand, the structure of the cosmology, the book Monde, and the vision of knowledge dissemination as invented by Otlet. The article argues that the analogies between the organization of architectural space and knowledge, as expressed in the drawings of Heymans and Otlet, are elaborated by means of a mode of visual thinking that is parallel to and rooted in the art of memory and utopian imagination.

0.002060612 = product of:
  0.03296979 = sum of:
    0.03296979 = weight(_text_:american in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296979 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.30134758 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.835-849

0.0018030355 = product of:
  0.028848568 = sum of:
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=2340,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 43(1992) no.4, S.284-294