Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024435451 = product of:
  0.114032105 = sum of:
    0.056933407 = weight(_text_:subject in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056933407 = score(doc=1788,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=1788,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=1788,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Reports results of an analysis of 205 randomly selected records from the OCLC OLUC, to test the assumption that online catalogues have greatly improved subject searching capabilities, over card catalogues, by making other fields in the records searchable as subject access points (SAPs). Results showed considerable overlap (duplication) among the SAPs provided by the title, subject heading and classification number fields. On average, little more than 4 unique, unduplicated access points were found per record. Where title and classification number fields do add some access points not provided by subject headings, the increase is less than many librarians might be expected. Suggests that OPACs might outperform catalogues more in precision than in recall by allowing greater discrimination in searching; terms from different fields may be combined; titles offer greater specifity; searches can be limited by date, language or other criteria

0.01202415 = product of:
  0.084169045 = sum of:
    0.067897044 = weight(_text_:subject in 217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067897044 = score(doc=217,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 217, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=217)
    0.016272005 = product of:
      0.03254401 = sum of:
        0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03254401 = score(doc=217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 217, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Date

22. 4.2007 10:07:51

LCSH

Subject cataloging
Subject headings

Subject

Subject cataloging
Subject headings

0.009516451 = product of:
  0.06661515 = sum of:
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Footnote

Rez. in: Library and information science resaerch 14(1992) no.1, S.117-118 (C. Tenopir); International classification 19(1992) no.4, S.227-228 (R. Fugmann); Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43(1992) no.6, S.456 (B.R. Boyce); Cataloging & classification quarterly 15(1992) no.1, S.245-247 (E.M. Rasmussen) Journal of academic librarianship 18(1992) no.1, S.39 (G.A. Crawford) // Winner of the 1992 ASIS best information science book award

0.004849789 = product of:
  0.067897044 = sum of:
    0.067897044 = weight(_text_:subject in 338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067897044 = score(doc=338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=338)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0047444506 = product of:
  0.066422306 = sum of:
    0.066422306 = weight(_text_:subject in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066422306 = score(doc=2259,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.61852604 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

51 subject searches were performed in an online catalog containing about 4,5 million records. Their success was judges in terms of lists of items, known to be relevant to the various topics, compiled by subject specialists (faculty members or authors of articles in specialized encyclopedias). Many of the items known to be relevant were not retrieved, even in very broad searches that sometimes retrieved several hundred records, and very little could be done to make them retrievable within the constraints of present cataloging practice. Librarians should recognize that library catalogs, as now implemented, offer only the most primitive of subject access and should seek to develop different types of subject access tools. - Vgl auch Letter (B.H. Weinberg) in: LTRS 36(1992) S.123-124.

0.0042435653 = product of:
  0.059409913 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0024248946 = product of:
  0.033948522 = sum of:
    0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 8948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033948522 = score(doc=8948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 8948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8948)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

A summary of the findings of various evaluations of role indicators is given. In general, the results have been negative in that little real evidence for the value of the devices has been presented. The need for roles in various subject fields and in very large systems, is discussed. They can only by justified on purely ecomic grounds - if the added cost involved in their use is offset by substantial reduction in the amount of output screening that must be done by the end user

0.0021433241 = product of:
  0.030006537 = sum of:
    0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 4014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030006537 = score(doc=4014,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4014, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4014)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Reports results of an evaluation of 2 expert systems designed for use in library reference services: ReferenceExpert (RE), developed by Houston University; and SourceFinder (SF), developed by Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign. The test group consisted of 60 graduate students at the initial stage of an intermediate level reference course. The evaluation involved test questions already used in an earlier study (College and research libraries 52(1991) no.5, S.454-465). Results indicated that: there was no significant difference between RE and SF students in the confidence they expressed regarding understanding of their test questions; no significant correlation was found between confidence in understanding the question and success in selecting appropriate sources; only 1/5 of the students agreed that the system they used could be considered 'intelligent'; the majority did not consider the system they used to be 'competent'; almost half agreed that the subject categories provided by the menus were too broad; a little more than half wer not satisfied with the information sources selected by their system; significantly more RE users than SF users agreed that they found the menu interface useful; and a keyword search capability was the feature most often mentioned as a needed system enhancement. Overall results indicated that current expert systems for the selection of reference sources cannot perform as well as experienced subject oriented reference librarians

0.0021217826 = product of:
  0.029704956 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=208)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0017146593 = product of:
  0.024005229 = sum of:
    0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024005229 = score(doc=308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=308)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 53(2002) no.4, S.321-322 (I. Fourie): "A substantial literature exists on artificial intelligence (AI) and expert systems in general, as well as in Library and Information Science (LIS). Many reports are over-confident and grossly exaggerate the power and potential of artificial intelligence (AI). This is especially true of the first phase of At, and to some extent also of the third phase that is stimulated by developments surrounding the Internet. The middle phase was mostly marked by disillusionment about the potential of Al and expert systems. The confusion around the promises made by AI and the lack of operational success, leaves managers of library and information services with the dilemma of distinguishing between worthwhile research reporting on operational projects and projects that exists only on paper or in the researchers' heads. It is very difficult to sieve between the two when working through the subject literature, and to distinguish between working technology/applications and wishful thinking. This might be one reason why working systems are sometimes ignored. According to Lancaster and Warner, library managers must also look much wider than the LIS literature to note new trends; this can, however, become a daunting task. Against this background the authors report on a study conducted with the support of the Special Libraries Association's Steven I. Goldspiel Memorial Research Grant. The objective of the study was to gain sufficient familiarity with the developments in Al and related technologies to make recommendations to the information service community on what can be applied, and what to expect in the near future. The intention therefore was to focus on systems that are actually operational, and systems that hold potential for the future. Since digital libraries seems an inevitable part of our future, applications concerning them features strongly in the final recommendations. The scope of AI in Library and Information Science depends on the interpretation of the concepts artificial intelligence and expert systems. "If a system has to `behave intelligently' (e.g. make inferences or learn from its mistakes) to qualify as having AI, few such systems exist in any application. On the other hand, if one accepts that a system exhibits AI if its does things that humans need intelligence to do, many more systems would qualify" (p. 107). One example is the field of subject indexing. The same would apply if a more relaxed definition of expert systems is applied as a system that "can help the non-expert perform some task at a level closer to that of an expert, whether or not all the essential components are in place" (p. 107). Most of the AI literature relevant to libraries falls in the field of expert systems. Lancaster and Warner identify (p. 6) expert systems as " a branch of artificial intelligence, even though very few expert systems exhibit true intelligence.""

0.0012124473 = product of:
  0.016974261 = sum of:
    0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 3649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016974261 = score(doc=3649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 3649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3649)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

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