Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0038191318 = product of:
  0.015276527 = sum of:
    0.0040900367 = product of:
      0.01227011 = sum of:
        0.01227011 = weight(_text_:problem in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01227011 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.09379075 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.011186491 = product of:
      0.016779736 = sum of:
        0.0084277745 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084277745 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
        0.008351962 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008351962 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.
Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

0.0030675277 = product of:
  0.024540221 = sum of:
    0.024540221 = product of:
      0.07362066 = sum of:
        0.07362066 = weight(_text_:problem in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07362066 = score(doc=1329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.5627445 = fieldWeight in 1329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1329)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0029796686 = product of:
  0.023837348 = sum of:
    0.023837348 = product of:
      0.07151204 = sum of:
        0.07151204 = weight(_text_:29 in 6362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07151204 = score(doc=6362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.6595664 = fieldWeight in 6362, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6362)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

8. 3.1997 10:05:29

Source

Computers and the humanities. 29(1995) no.5, S.339-361

0.0029796686 = product of:
  0.023837348 = sum of:
    0.023837348 = product of:
      0.07151204 = sum of:
        0.07151204 = weight(_text_:29 in 822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07151204 = score(doc=822,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.6595664 = fieldWeight in 822, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=822)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

8. 3.1997 10:05:29

Source

Computers and the humanities. 29(1995) no.4, S.259-270

0.0028092582 = product of:
  0.022474065 = sum of:
    0.022474065 = product of:
      0.067422196 = sum of:
        0.067422196 = weight(_text_:29 in 2387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067422196 = score(doc=2387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.6218451 = fieldWeight in 2387, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2387)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of documentation. 29(1973) no.2, S.137-168

0.0025305813 = product of:
  0.02024465 = sum of:
    0.02024465 = product of:
      0.06073395 = sum of:
        0.06073395 = weight(_text_:problem in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06073395 = score(doc=946,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.46424055 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The philosophy of history can help articulate problems relevant to information organization. One such problem is "aboutness": How do texts relate to the world? In response to this problem, philosophers of history have developed theories of colligation describing how authors bind together phenomena under organizing concepts. Drawing on these ideas, I present a theory of subject analysis that avoids the problematic illusion of an independent "landscape" of subjects. This theory points to a broad vision of the future of information organization and some specific challenges to be met.

0.0022137975 = product of:
  0.01771038 = sum of:
    0.01771038 = product of:
      0.05313114 = sum of:
        0.05313114 = weight(_text_:problem in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05313114 = score(doc=2069,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.4061259 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

0.001789391 = product of:
  0.014315128 = sum of:
    0.014315128 = product of:
      0.042945385 = sum of:
        0.042945385 = weight(_text_:problem in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042945385 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The work is an adaptation of the author's dissertation and has the following chapters: (1) background and introduction; (2) a problem in classification theory; (3) previous fiction analysis theories and systems and 'The left hand of darkness'; (4) fiction warrant and critical warrant; (5) experimental fiction analysis system (EFAS); (6) application and evaluation of EFAS. Appendix 1 gives references to fiction analysis systems and appendix 2 lists EFAS coding sheets

0.001789391 = product of:
  0.014315128 = sum of:
    0.014315128 = product of:
      0.042945385 = sum of:
        0.042945385 = weight(_text_:problem in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042945385 = score(doc=5828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0017399922 = product of:
  0.013919937 = sum of:
    0.013919937 = product of:
      0.04175981 = sum of:
        0.04175981 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04175981 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.0015496584 = product of:
  0.012397267 = sum of:
    0.012397267 = product of:
      0.0371918 = sum of:
        0.0371918 = weight(_text_:problem in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0371918 = score(doc=133,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28428814 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

It is vital for library and information science to understand the subject indexing process thoroughly. However, document analysis, the first and most important step in indexing, has not received sufficient attention. As this is an exceptionally hard problem, we still do not dispose of a sound indexing theory. Therefore we have difficulties in teaching indexing and in explaining why a given subject representation is "better" than another. Technological advancements have not helped to close this fundamental gap. To proceed, we should ask the right questions instead. Several types of indexer inconsistencies can be explained as acceptable, yet different conceptualizations which resulting of the variety of groups dealing with a problem from their respective viewpoints. Multiple indexed documents are regarded as the normal case. Intersubjectively replicable indexing results are often questionable or do not constitute interesting cases of indexing at all. In the context of my ongoing dissertation in which I intend to develop an enhanced indexing theory by investigating improvements within a social sciences domain, this paper explains user-oriented selective depth analysis and why I chose that configuration. Strongly influenced by Mai's dissertation, I also communicate my first insights concerning current indexing theories. I agree that I cannot ignore epistemological stances and philosophical issues in language and meaning related to indexing and accept the openness of the interpretive nature of the indexing process. Although I present arguments against the employment of an indexing language as well, it is still indispensable in situations which demand easier access and control by devices. Despite the enormous difficulties the user-oriented and selective depth analysis poses, I argue that it is both feasible and useful if one achieves careful guidance of the possible interpretations. There is some hope because the number of useful interpretations is limited: Every summary is tailored to a purpose, audience and situation. Domain, discourse and social practice entail additional constraints. A pluralistic method mix that focusses on ecologically valid, holistic contexts and employs qualitative methods is recommended. Domain analysis urgently has to be made more practical and applicable. Only then we will be able to investigate empirically domains in order to identify their structures shaped by the corresponding discourse communities. We plan to represent the recognized problem structures and indexing questions of relevance to a small domain in formal, ontological computer models -- if we can find such stable knowledge structures. This would allow us to tailor dynamically summaries for user communities. For practical purposes we suggest to assume a less demanding position than Hjorland's "totality of the epistemological potential". It is sufficent that we identify and represent iteratively the information needs of today's user groups in interactive knowledge-based systems. The best way to formalize such knowledge gained about discourse communities is however unknown. Indexers should stay in direct contact with the community they serve or be part of it to ensure agreement with their viewpoints. Checklist/request-oriented indexing could be very helpful but it remains to be demonstrated how well it will be applicable in the social sciences. A frame-based representation or at least a sophisticated grouping of terms could help to express relational knowledge structures. There remains much work to do since in practice no one has shown yet how such an improved indexing system would work and if the indexing results were really "better".

0.0015337638 = product of:
  0.012270111 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=213,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 213, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=213)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Die verfügbare multimediale Information nimmt stetig zu, nicht zuletzt durch die Tag für Tag wachsende Zahl an neuer Information im Internet. Damit man dieser Flut Herr werden und diese Information wieder abrufbar machen kann, muss sie annotiert und geeignet in Datenbanken abgelegt werden. Hier besteht das Problem der manuellen Annotation, das einerseits durch die Ermüdung aufgrund der Routinearbeit und andererseits durch die Subjektivität des Annotierenden zu Fehlern in der Annotation führen kann. Unterstützende Systeme, die dem Dokumentar genau diese Routinearbeit abnehmen, können hier bis zu einem gewissen Grad Abhilfe schaffen. Die wissenschaftliche Erschließung von beispielsweise filmbeiträgen wird der Dokumentar zwar immer noch selbst machen müssen und auch sollen, aber die Erkennung und Dokumentation von sog. Einstellungsgrenzen kann durchaus automatisch mit Unterstützung eines Rechners geschehen. In diesem Beitrag zeigen wir anhand von Projekten, die wir durchgeführt haben, wie weit diese Unterstützung des Dokumentars bei der Annotation von Bildern und Videos gehen kann

0.0013919937 = product of:
  0.01113595 = sum of:
    0.01113595 = product of:
      0.03340785 = sum of:
        0.03340785 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03340785 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0013919937 = product of:
  0.01113595 = sum of:
    0.01113595 = product of:
      0.03340785 = sum of:
        0.03340785 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03340785 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.0012781365 = product of:
  0.010225092 = sum of:
    0.010225092 = product of:
      0.030675275 = sum of:
        0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030675275 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

It is a truism in information science that indexing is associated with 'aboutness', and that index terms that accurately represent what a document is about will serve the needs of the user/searcher well. It is contended in this paper that indexing which is limited to the representation of aboutness serves the novice in a discipline adequately, but does not serve the scholar or researcher, who is concerned with highly specific aspects of or points-of-view on a subject. The linguistic analogs of 'aboutness' and 'aspects' are 'topic' and 'comment' respectively. Serial indexing services deal with topics at varyng levels of specificity, but neglect comment almost entirely. This may explain the underutilization of secondary information services by scholars, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in user studies. It may also account for the incomplete lists of bibliographic references in many research papers. Natural language searching of fulltext databases does not solve this problem, because the aspect of a topic of interest to researchers is often inexpressible in concrete terms. The thesis is illustrated with examples of indexing failures in research projects the author has conducted on a range of linguistic and library-information science topics. Finally, the question of whether indexing can be improved to meet the needs of researchers is examined

0.0012781365 = product of:
  0.010225092 = sum of:
    0.010225092 = product of:
      0.030675275 = sum of:
        0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030675275 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=400)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Für die inhaltliche Erschließung von Sach- und Fachliteratur stehen heutzutage etablierte Verfahren und Standards zur Verfügung. Anders verhält es sich dagegen mit der Erschließung von Schöner Literatur und Bildern. Beide Medien sind sehr verschieden und haben doch eines gemeinsam. Sie lassen sich mit den Regeln für Sach- und Fachliteratur nicht zufriedenstellend inhaltlich erschließen. Dieses Problem erkannten in den 1970er und 80er Jahren beide Autoren, deren Methoden ich hier verglichen habe. Annelise Mark Pejtersen bemühte sich um eine Lösung für die Schöne Literatur und wählte dabei einen empirischen Ansatz. Sara Shatford versuchte durch theoretische Überlegungen eine Lösung für Bilder zu erarbeiten. Der empirische wie der theoretische Ansatz führten zu Methoden, die das jeweilige Medium unter verschiedenen Aspekten betrachten. Diese Aspekten basieren in beiden Fällen auf denselben Fragen. Dennoch unterscheiden sie sich stark voneinander sowohl im Hinblick auf die Inhalte, die sie aufnehmen können, als auch hinsichtlich ihrer Struktur. Eine Anwendung einer der Methoden auf das jeweils andere Medium erscheint daher nicht sinnvoll. In dieser Arbeit werden die Methoden von Pejtersen und Shatford zunächst einzeln erläutert. Im Anschluss werden die Aspekte beider Methoden vergleichend gegenübergestellt. Dazu werden ausgewählte Beispiele mit beiden Methoden erschlossen. Abschließend wird geprüft, ob die wechselseitige Erschließung, wie sie im Vergleich angewendet wurde, in der Praxis sinnvoll ist und ob es Medien gibt, deren Erschließung mit beiden Methoden interessant wäre.

0.0012303602 = product of:
  0.009842882 = sum of:
    0.009842882 = product of:
      0.029528644 = sum of:
        0.029528644 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029528644 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.13-22

0.0012290506 = product of:
  0.009832405 = sum of:
    0.009832405 = product of:
      0.029497212 = sum of:
        0.029497212 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029497212 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

29. 9.2001 14:03:14

0.0012290506 = product of:
  0.009832405 = sum of:
    0.009832405 = product of:
      0.029497212 = sum of:
        0.029497212 = weight(_text_:29 in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029497212 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Chen arranged with an Art History instructor to require 20 medieval art images in papers received from 29 students. Participants completed a self administered presearch and postsearch questionnaire, and were interviewed after questionnaire analysis, in order to collect both the keywords and phrases they planned to use, and those actually used. Three MLIS student reviewers then mapped the queries to Enser and McGregor's four categories, Jorgensen's 12 classes, and Fidel's 12 feature data and object poles providing a degree of match on a seven point scale (one not at all to 7 exact). The reviewers give highest scores to Enser and McGregor;'s categories. Modifications to both the Enser and McGregor and Jorgensen schemes are suggested

0.0012290506 = product of:
  0.009832405 = sum of:
    0.009832405 = product of:
      0.029497212 = sum of:
        0.029497212 = weight(_text_:29 in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029497212 = score(doc=5497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

30. 7.2006 14:29:04