-
Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.01
0.010882379 = product of:
0.07617664 = sum of:
0.060966957 = weight(_text_:source in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060966957 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.38341597 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
0.015209687 = product of:
0.030419374 = sum of:
0.030419374 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030419374 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- A known-item search for abstracts to previously retrieved references revealed that 2 documents from the same annual volume had been indexed twice. Working from the premise that the whole volume may have been double-indexed, a search strategy was devised that limited the journal code to the year in question. 57 references were retrieved, comprising 28 pairs of duplicates plus a citation for the whole volume. Author, title, source and descriptors were requested off-line and the citations were paired with their duplicates. The 4 categories of descriptors-major descriptors, minor descriptors, subheadings and check-tags-were compared for depth and consistency of indexing and lessons that might be learnt from the study are discussed.
- Source
- Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
-
White, H.; Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.: HIVEing : the effect of a semantic web technology on inter-indexer consistency (2014)
0.01
0.005364591 = product of:
0.037552133 = sum of:
0.026688073 = weight(_text_:web in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026688073 = score(doc=1781,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
0.010864062 = product of:
0.021728124 = sum of:
0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021728124 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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.
-
Reich, P.; Biever, E.J.: Indexing consistency : The input/output function of thesauri (1991)
0.00
0.0049768947 = product of:
0.069676526 = sum of:
0.069676526 = weight(_text_:source in 2258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069676526 = score(doc=2258,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.4381897 = fieldWeight in 2258, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2258)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- This study measures inter-indexer consistency as determined by the number of identical terms assigned to the same document by two different indexing organizations using the same thesaurus as a source for the entry vocabulary. The authors derive consistency figures of 24 percent and 45 percent for two samples. Factors in the consistency failures include variations in indexing depth, differences in choice of concepts for indexing, different indexing policies, and a highly specific indexing vocabulray. Results indicate that broad search strategies are often necessary for adequate search yields.
-
Chen, X.: Indexing consistency between online catalogues (2008)
0.00
0.0041162297 = product of:
0.057627216 = sum of:
0.057627216 = weight(_text_:benutzer in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057627216 = score(doc=2209,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18291734 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7029257 = idf(docFreq=400, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.31504512 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7029257 = idf(docFreq=400, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- In der globalen Online-Umgebung stellen viele bibliographische Dienstleistungen integrierten Zugang zu unterschiedlichen internetbasierten OPACs zur Verfügung. In solch einer Umgebung erwarten Benutzer mehr Übereinstimmungen innerhalb und zwischen den Systemen zu sehen. Zweck dieser Studie ist, die Indexierungskonsistenz zwischen Systemen zu untersuchen. Währenddessen werden einige Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen können, untersucht. Wichtigstes Ziel dieser Studie ist, die Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen herauszufinden, damit sinnvolle Vorschläge gemacht werden können, um die Indexierungskonsistenz zu verbessern. Eine Auswahl von 3307 Monographien wurde aus zwei chinesischen bibliographischen Katalogen gewählt. Nach Hooper's Formel war die durchschnittliche Indexierungskonsistenz für Indexterme 64,2% und für Klassennummern 61,6%. Nach Rolling's Formel war sie für Indexterme 70,7% und für Klassennummern 63,4%. Mehrere Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen, wurden untersucht: (1) Indexierungsbereite; (2) Indexierungsspezifizität; (3) Länge der Monographien; (4) Kategorie der Indexierungssprache; (5) Sachgebiet der Monographien; (6) Entwicklung von Disziplinen; (7) Struktur des Thesaurus oder der Klassifikation; (8) Erscheinungsjahr. Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen wurden ebenfalls analysiert. Die Analyse ergab: (1) den Indexieren mangelt es an Fachwissen, Vertrautheit mit den Indexierungssprachen und den Indexierungsregeln, so dass viele Inkonsistenzen verursacht wurden; (2) der Mangel an vereinheitlichten oder präzisen Regeln brachte ebenfalls Inkonsistenzen hervor; (3) verzögerte Überarbeitungen der Indexierungssprachen, Mangel an terminologischer Kontrolle, zu wenige Erläuterungen und "siehe auch" Referenzen, sowie die hohe semantische Freiheit bei der Auswahl von Deskriptoren oder Klassen, verursachten Inkonsistenzen.
-
Haanen, E.: Specificiteit en consistentie : een kwantitatief oderzoek naar trefwoordtoekenning door UBA en UBN (1991)
0.00
0.0041064536 = product of:
0.057490345 = sum of:
0.057490345 = weight(_text_:open in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057490345 = score(doc=4778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.39803052 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Open. 23(1991) no.2, S.45-49
-
Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002)
0.00
0.003109251 = product of:
0.021764755 = sum of:
0.017419131 = weight(_text_:source in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017419131 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.10954742 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
0.0043456247 = product of:
0.008691249 = sum of:
0.008691249 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008691249 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
- Footnote
- Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960)
0.00
0.0018624107 = product of:
0.026073748 = sum of:
0.026073748 = product of:
0.052147496 = sum of:
0.052147496 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052147496 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
-
Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996)
0.00
0.0012416071 = product of:
0.017382499 = sum of:
0.017382499 = product of:
0.034764998 = sum of:
0.034764998 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034764998 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
-
Neshat, N.; Horri, A.: ¬A study of subject indexing consistency between the National Library of Iran and Humanities Libraries in the area of Iranian studies (2006)
0.00
0.0010864063 = product of:
0.015209687 = sum of:
0.015209687 = product of:
0.030419374 = sum of:
0.030419374 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030419374 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 4. 1.2007 10:22:26
-
Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005)
0.00
9.3120534E-4 = product of:
0.013036874 = sum of:
0.013036874 = product of:
0.026073748 = sum of:
0.026073748 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026073748 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 18. 6.2005 13:16:22
-
Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000)
0.00
9.3120534E-4 = product of:
0.013036874 = sum of:
0.013036874 = product of:
0.026073748 = sum of:
0.026073748 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026073748 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
-
Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006)
0.00
7.7600445E-4 = product of:
0.010864062 = sum of:
0.010864062 = product of:
0.021728124 = sum of:
0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021728124 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
