Search (96 results, page 1 of 5)

0.01174254 = product of:
  0.03522762 = sum of:
    0.018178111 = weight(_text_:information in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018178111 = score(doc=5835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
    0.017049506 = product of:
      0.051148515 = sum of:
        0.051148515 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051148515 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

Source

Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u, L. Kajberg

0.0100128 = product of:
  0.030038398 = sum of:
    0.017995412 = weight(_text_:information in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017995412 = score(doc=6032,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6032, 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=6032)
    0.012042987 = product of:
      0.03612896 = sum of:
        0.03612896 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03612896 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined

Date

29. 9.2001 14:03:14

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.774-778

Theme

Information

0.009266175 = product of:
  0.027798526 = sum of:
    0.015742704 = weight(_text_:information in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015742704 = score(doc=4888,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4888, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4888)
    0.012055821 = product of:
      0.03616746 = sum of:
        0.03616746 = weight(_text_:22 in 4888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03616746 = score(doc=4888,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This paper centres on the tools for the management of new digital documents, which are not only textual, but also visual-video, audio or multimedia in the full sense. Among the aims is to demonstrate that operating within the terms of generic Information Retrieval through textual language only is limiting, and it is instead necessary to consider ampler criteria, such as those of MultiMedia Information Retrieval, according to which, every type of digital document can be analyzed and searched by the proper elements of language for its proper nature. MMIR is presented as the organic complex of the systems of Text Retrieval, Visual Retrieval, Video Retrieval, and Audio Retrieval, each of which has an approach to information management that handles the concrete textual, visual, audio, or video content of the documents directly, here defined as content-based. In conclusion, the limits of this content-based objective access to documents is underlined. The discrepancy known as the semantic gap is that which occurs between semantic-interpretive access and content-based access. Finally, the integration of these conceptions is explained, gathering and composing the merits and the advantages of each of the approaches and of the systems to access to information.

Date

22. 1.2012 13:02:10

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Enser, P.G.B.: Visual image retrieval. In: Annual review of information science and technology. 42(2008), S.3-42.

Source

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

0.007974233 = product of:
  0.023922697 = sum of:
    0.010283092 = weight(_text_:information in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010283092 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
    0.013639605 = product of:
      0.040918812 = sum of:
        0.040918812 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040918812 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.007893564 = product of:
  0.02368069 = sum of:
    0.013358129 = weight(_text_:information in 3953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013358129 = score(doc=3953,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3953, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3953)
    0.0103225615 = product of:
      0.030967683 = sum of:
        0.030967683 = weight(_text_:29 in 3953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030967683 = score(doc=3953,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3953, 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=3953)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper endeavours to show the possibilities for thematic description of audio-visual documents for television with the aim of promoting and facilitating information retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - To achieve these goals different database fields are shown, as well as the way in which they are organised for indexing and thematic element description, analysed and used as an example. Some of the database fields are extracted from an analytical study of the documentary system of television in Spain. Others are being tested in university television on which indexing experiments are carried out. Findings - Not all thematic descriptions are used on television information systems; nevertheless, some television channels do use thematic descriptions of both image and sound, applying thesauri. Moreover, it is possible to access sequences using full text retrieval as well. Originality/value - The development of the documentary task, applying the described techniques, promotes thematic indexing and hence thematic retrieval. Given the fact that this is without doubt one of the aspects most demanded by television journalists (along with people's names). This conceptualisation translates into the adaptation of databases to new indexing methods.

Date

29. 8.2010 12:40:35

0.0070135645 = product of:
  0.021040693 = sum of:
    0.008997706 = weight(_text_:information in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008997706 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
    0.012042987 = product of:
      0.03612896 = sum of:
        0.03612896 = weight(_text_:29 in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03612896 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.3, S.260-273

0.005980674 = product of:
  0.017942023 = sum of:
    0.007712319 = weight(_text_:information in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007712319 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
    0.010229703 = product of:
      0.030689107 = sum of:
        0.030689107 = weight(_text_:22 in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030689107 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1416, 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=1416)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This paper reports on the preliminary findings of a study that explores mental associations made by novices viewing art images. In a controlled environment, 20 Taiwanese college students responded to the question "What does the painting remind you of?" after viewing each digitized image of 15 oil paintings by a famous Taiwanese artist. Rather than focusing on the representation or interpretation of art, the study attempted to solicit information about how non-experts are stimulated by art. This paper reports on the analysis of participant responses to three of the images, and describes a12-type taxonomy of association emerged from the analysis. While 9 of the types are derived and adapted from facets in the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, three new types - Artistic Influence Association, Reactive Association, and Prototype Association - are discovered. The conclusion briefly discusses both the significance of the findings and the implications for future research.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.005980674 = product of:
  0.017942023 = sum of:
    0.007712319 = weight(_text_:information in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007712319 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
    0.010229703 = product of:
      0.030689107 = sum of:
        0.030689107 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030689107 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13220046 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.0058970638 = product of:
  0.017691191 = sum of:
    0.0090890555 = weight(_text_:information in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0090890555 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
    0.008602135 = product of:
      0.025806403 = sum of:
        0.025806403 = weight(_text_:29 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025806403 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In this paper a framework for the construction and organization of knowledge organization and representation languages in the context of digital photograph collections is presented. It analyses exigencies of photographs as documentary objects, as well as several models of indexing, different proposals of languages and a theoretical revision of ontologies in this research field, in relation to visual documents. In considering the photograph as an analysis object, it is appropriate to study all its attributes: features, components or properties of an objeet that can be represented in an information processing system. The attributes which are related to visual features include cognitive and affective answers and elements that describe spatial, semantic, symbolic or emotional features about a photograph. In any case, it is necessary to treat: a) morphological and material attributes (emulsion, state of preservation); b) biographical attributes: (school or trend, publication or exhibition); c) attributes of content: what and how a photograph says something; d) relational attributes: visual documents establish relationships with other documents that can be analysed in order to understand them.

Date

29. 8.2004 16:20:55

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

0.005779044 = 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

0.0048661022 = product of:
  0.029196613 = sum of:
    0.029196613 = product of:
      0.08758984 = sum of:
        0.08758984 = weight(_text_:29 in 6362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08758984 = score(doc=6362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

8. 3.1997 10:05:29

Source

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

0.0048661022 = product of:
  0.029196613 = sum of:
    0.029196613 = product of:
      0.08758984 = sum of:
        0.08758984 = weight(_text_:29 in 822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08758984 = score(doc=822,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

8. 3.1997 10:05:29

Source

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

0.0048474963 = product of:
  0.029084977 = sum of:
    0.029084977 = weight(_text_:information in 7510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029084977 = score(doc=7510,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.43886948 = fieldWeight in 7510, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7510)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Library and information science research. 12(1990) no.3, S.251-262

0.004717651 = product of:
  0.014152952 = sum of:
    0.007271244 = weight(_text_:information in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007271244 = score(doc=2653,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
    0.0068817073 = product of:
      0.020645121 = sum of:
        0.020645121 = weight(_text_:29 in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020645121 = score(doc=2653,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

1. Introduction The document at hand is often regarded as the most important entity for analysis in the indexing situation. The indexer's focus is directed to the "entity and its faithful description" (Soergel, 1985, 227) and the indexer is advised to "stick to the text and the author's claims" (Lancaster, 2003, 37). The indexer's aim is to establish the subject matter based an an analysis of the document with the goal of representing the document as truthfully as possible and to ensure the subject representation's validity by remaining neutral and objective. To help indexers with their task they are guided towards particular and important attributes of the document that could help them determine the document's subject matter. The exact attributes the indexer is recommended to examine varies, but typical examples are: the title, the abstract, the table of contents, chapter headings, chapter subheadings, preface, introduction, foreword, the text itself, bibliographical references, index entries, illustrations, diagrams, and tables and their captions. The exact recommendations vary according to the type of document that is being indexed (monographs vs. periodical articles, for instance). It is clear that indexers should provide faithful descriptions, that indexers should represent the author's claims, and that the document's attributes are helpful points of analysis. However, indexers need much more guidance when determining the subject than simply the documents themselves. One approach that could be taken to handle the Situation is a useroriented approach in which it is argued that the indexer should ask, "how should I make this document ... visible to potential users? What terms should I use to convey its knowledge to those interested?" (Albrechtsen, 1993, 222). The basic idea is that indexers need to have the users' information needs and terminology in mind when determining the subject matter of documents as well as when selecting index terms.

Date

29. 8.2004 15:13:08

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

0.004587805 = product of:
  0.02752683 = sum of:
    0.02752683 = product of:
      0.082580484 = sum of:
        0.082580484 = weight(_text_:29 in 2387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082580484 = score(doc=2387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13279912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037751827 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.00445271 = product of:
  0.026716258 = sum of:
    0.026716258 = weight(_text_:information in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026716258 = score(doc=1329,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 1329, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1329)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Theory and application of information research. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Research Forum on Information Science, 3.-6.8.1977, Copenhagen. Ed.: O. Harbo u. L. Kajberg

0.00445271 = product of:
  0.026716258 = sum of:
    0.026716258 = weight(_text_:information in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026716258 = score(doc=521,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reviews the methods of calculating the information content of images, with particular reference to the information content of printed and photographic images; and printed and television images

0.004241559 = product of:
  0.025449354 = sum of:
    0.025449354 = weight(_text_:information in 7111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025449354 = score(doc=7111,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 7111, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7111)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Imprint

Oxford : Learned Information

Source

Online information 93: 17th International Online Meeting Proceedings, London, 7.-9.12.1993. Ed. by D.I. Raitt et al

0.003673298 = product of:
  0.022039788 = sum of:
    0.022039788 = weight(_text_:information in 5828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022039788 = score(doc=5828,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 5828, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5828)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Issues concerning the formulation and application of a model of how humans value information are examined. Formulation of a value function is based on research from modelling, value assessment, human information seeking behavior, and human decision making. The proposed function is incorporated into a computer-based fiction retrieval system and evaluated using data from nine searches. Evaluation is based on the ability of an individual's value function to discriminate among novels selected, rejected, and not considered. The results are discussed in terms of both formulation and utilization of a value function as well as the implications for extending the proposed formulation to other information seeking environments

Source

Information processing and management. 20(1984), S.583-601

0.0034276973 = product of:
  0.020566184 = sum of:
    0.020566184 = weight(_text_:information in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020566184 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0662725 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037751827 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1257, 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=1257)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.53, [=Suppl.16]