Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2f_documents %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c heery evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bloss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bloss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1

Collantes, L.Y.: Degree of agreement in naming objects and concepts for information retrieval (1995) 0.00
```
0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
```
Abstract

The research described in this article extends work done on human behavior in naming concepts and objects by adapting a methodology developed at Bell Labs and applying it to a library indexing language, the Library of Congress Subject Headings. The study investigated the representation of users' knowledge (names of objects and concepts), database representation for similar objects and concepts, and degree of agreement among users and between users and information systems. Three user groups give names to 40 stumuli. Names generated were compared with each other and with LCSH. Degree of agreement was calculated using similarity measures. The analyses identified patterns of agreement and variability in naming. There was little agreement in the names people use and the names recommended for use by LC, implying that retrieval systems should do more to accomodate common naming behavior