Search (59 results, page 1 of 3)

0.009394031 = product of:
  0.028182093 = sum of:
    0.014542488 = weight(_text_:information in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014542488 = score(doc=7247,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
    0.013639605 = product of:
      0.040918812 = sum of:
        0.040918812 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040918812 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Describes an experiment comparing the performance of automatic full-text indexing software for personal computers with the human intellectual assignment of indexing terms in each document in a collection. Considers the times required to index the document, to retrieve documents satisfying 5 typical foreseen information needs, and the recall and precision ratios of searching. The software used is QuickFinder facility in WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22

0.008015502 = product of:
  0.024046507 = sum of:
    0.010283092 = weight(_text_:information in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010283092 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
    0.013763415 = product of:
      0.041290242 = sum of:
        0.041290242 = weight(_text_:29 in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041290242 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

4. 1.1999 19:31:29

Source

nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.8, S.459-462

0.006011627 = product of:
  0.018034881 = sum of:
    0.007712319 = weight(_text_:information in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007712319 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
    0.0103225615 = product of:
      0.030967683 = sum of:
        0.030967683 = weight(_text_:29 in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030967683 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The selection and representation of concepts in indexing of the same documents in 2 databases of library and information studies are considered. the authors compare the indexing of 49 documents in KINF and LISA. They focus on the types of concepts presented in indexing, the degree of concept consistency in indexing, and similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts. The largest group of indexed concepts in both databases was the category of entities while concepts belonging to the category of properties were almost missing in both databases. The second largest group of indexed concepts in KINF was the category of activities and in LISA the category of dimensions. Although the concept consistency between KINF and LISA remained rather low and was only 34%, there were approximately 2,2 concepts per document which were indexed from the same documents in both databses. These common concepts belonged mostly to the category of entities

Date

24. 2.1999 21:29:51

0.006011627 = product of:
  0.018034881 = sum of:
    0.007712319 = weight(_text_:information in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007712319 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.0103225615 = product of:
      0.030967683 = sum of:
        0.030967683 = weight(_text_:29 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030967683 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

29. 8.2004 16:17:19

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

0.005980674 = product of:
  0.017942023 = sum of:
    0.007712319 = weight(_text_:information in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007712319 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.010229703 = product of:
      0.030689107 = sum of:
        0.030689107 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030689107 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882

0.005980674 = product of:
  0.017942023 = sum of:
    0.007712319 = weight(_text_:information in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007712319 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
    0.010229703 = product of:
      0.030689107 = sum of:
        0.030689107 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030689107 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

Source

Journal of librarianship and information science. 32(2000) no.1, S.4-8

0.0058970638 = product of:
  0.017691191 = sum of:
    0.0090890555 = weight(_text_:information in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0090890555 = score(doc=383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
    0.008602135 = product of:
      0.025806403 = sum of:
        0.025806403 = weight(_text_:29 in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025806403 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.

Date

26. 8.2012 14:29:37

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1747-1757

0.005779044 = product of:
  0.01733713 = sum of:
    0.003635622 = weight(_text_:information in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003635622 = score(doc=1858,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.054858685 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.013701509 = product of:
      0.020552263 = sum of:
        0.010322561 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010322561 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
        0.010229703 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010229703 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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)

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.0050096894 = product of:
  0.015029067 = sum of:
    0.0064269323 = weight(_text_:information in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064269323 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
    0.008602135 = product of:
      0.025806403 = sum of:
        0.025806403 = weight(_text_:29 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025806403 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

23.11.1995 11:29:46

Source

Information processing and management. 26(1990) no.4, S.549-558

0.0049838955 = product of:
  0.014951685 = sum of:
    0.0064269323 = weight(_text_:information in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064269323 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
    0.008524753 = product of:
      0.025574258 = sum of:
        0.025574258 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025574258 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.

0.003635622 = product of:
  0.021813732 = sum of:
    0.021813732 = weight(_text_:information in 7496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021813732 = score(doc=7496,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 7496, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7496)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Cooperating information societies: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, San Francisco, CA, 1.-4.10.1969. Ed.: J.B. North

0.0034276973 = product of:
  0.020566184 = sum of:
    0.020566184 = weight(_text_:information in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020566184 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0034276973 = product of:
  0.020566184 = sum of:
    0.020566184 = weight(_text_:information in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020566184 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0034099012 = product of:
  0.020459406 = sum of:
    0.020459406 = product of:
      0.061378215 = sum of:
        0.061378215 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061378215 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

0.0029992354 = product of:
  0.017995412 = sum of:
    0.017995412 = weight(_text_:information in 4028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017995412 = score(doc=4028,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4028, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4028)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reports on an analysis of lexical ambiguity in information retrieval text collections and on experiments to determine the utility of word meanings for separating relevant from nonrelevant documents. Results show that there is considerable ambiguity even in a specialised database. Word senses provide a significant separation between relevant and nonrelevant documents, but several factors contribute to determining whether disambiguation will make an improvement in performance such as: resolving lexical ambiguity was found to have little impact on retrieval effectiveness for documents that have many words in common with the query. Discusses other uses of word sense disambiguation in an information retrieval context

Source

ACM transactions on information systems. 10(1992) no.2, S.115-141

0.0029684731 = product of:
  0.017810838 = sum of:
    0.017810838 = weight(_text_:information in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017810838 = score(doc=3833,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Forging new partnerships in information: converging technologies. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, ASIS'95, Chicago, IL, 9-12 October 1995. Ed.: T. Kinney

0.002597414 = product of:
  0.015584484 = sum of:
    0.015584484 = weight(_text_:information in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015584484 = score(doc=4526,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reports results of a study of 2 information retrieval systems on a 2.000 document full text medical database. The first system, SAPHIRE, features concept based automatic indexing and statistical retrieval techniques, while the second system, SWORD, features traditional word based Boolean techniques, 16 medical students at Oregon Health Sciences Univ. each performed 10 searches and their results, recorded in terms of recall and precision, showed nearly equal performance for both systems. SAPHIRE was also compared with a version of SWORD modified to use automatic indexing and ranked retrieval. Using batch input of queries, the latter method performed slightly better

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information Inc.

Source

Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, 26.-29.10.92. Ed.: D. Shaw

0.002570773 = product of:
  0.015424638 = sum of:
    0.015424638 = weight(_text_:information in 1957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015424638 = score(doc=1957,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1957, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1957)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.47-58.

0.002570773 = product of:
  0.015424638 = sum of:
    0.015424638 = weight(_text_:information in 2410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015424638 = score(doc=2410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2410)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Challenges to an information society : proceedings of the 47th ASIS annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 21-25, 1984. Ed.: Barbara Flood

0.0024237481 = product of:
  0.014542488 = sum of:
    0.014542488 = weight(_text_:information in 555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014542488 = score(doc=555,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 555, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=555)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article discusses indexing practices at the National Agriculture Library. Indexers at NAL scan over 2,200 incoming journals for input into its bibliographic database, AGRICOLA. The National Agriculture Library's coverage extends worldwide covering a broad range of agriculture subjects. Access to AGRICOLA occurs in several ways: onsite search, commercial vendors, Dialog Information Services, Inc. and BRS Information Technologies. The National Agricultural Library uses CAB THESAURUS to describe the subject content of articles in AGRICOLA.