Search (273 results, page 14 of 14)

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 8743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=8743,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 8743, 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=8743)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 13(1994) no.1, S.43-49

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 953, 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=953)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of information; communication; and library science. 3(1997) no.4, S.26-33

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 5143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=5143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5143, 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=5143)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Identifies the interest in questions of classified catalogues generated by the development of on-line catalogues, establishing a difference between 2 large areas: free access to information items in a systematic arrangement and expressing the contents of books by means of notational symbols in a classification system in a local catalogue. Examines the elements and structure of classification systems, the internationally important universal classifications, the procedures for book display and systematic processing in West German public libraries and exhibtion techniques in West German academic libraries. Covers universal and faceted classifications, as well as classification systems in on-line catalogues

5.735585E-4 = product of:
  0.008029819 = sum of:
    0.008029819 = product of:
      0.024089456 = sum of:
        0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024089456 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

4.7796548E-4 = product of:
  0.0066915164 = sum of:
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 1088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=1088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1088, 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=1088)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2299, 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=2299)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 32(1997), S.231-267

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2782, 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=2782)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991), S.78-98

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 4272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=4272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4272, 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=4272)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.591-632

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=4293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4293, 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=4293)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 36(2002), S.171-228

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1071, 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=1071)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper aims to provide an overview of automatic classification research, which focuses on issues related to the automatic classification of documents in a library environment. The review covers literature published in mainstream library and information science studies. The review was done on literature published in both academic and professional LIS journals and other documents. This review reveals that basically three types of research are being done on automatic classification: 1) hierarchical classification using different library classification schemes, 2) text categorization and document categorization using different type of classifiers with or without using training documents, and 3) automatic bibliographic classification. Predominantly this research is directed towards solving problems of organization of digital documents in an online environment. However, very little research is devoted towards solving the problems of arrangement of physical documents.

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=3781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3781, 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=3781)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2037-2062

4.076838E-4 = product of:
  0.005707573 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=4281,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

It is common knowledge that computer interfaces in different cultures vary. Interface designers present information in different languages, use different iconography to designate concepts, and employ different standards for dates, time, and numbers. These manifest differences beg the question of how easily an interface designed in one country can be used in and transferred to another country. Are the challenges involved in adaptation merely cosmetic or are they shaped by more profound forces? Do all cultures respond to interfaces in similar ways, or does culture itself shape user comprehension? If culture is a factor in explaining varied user reactions to comparable interfaces, what specific cultural dimensions are responsible for the divergences? Do differences reside mainly at the level of national cultures, or do they depend an other variables such as class, gender, age, education, and expertise with technology? In the face of a potentially large number of explanatory variables, how do we delimit a workable concept of culture and yet remain cognizant of other factors that might shape the results of culture and interface research? Questions such as these have been asked in the ergonomics community since the early 1970s, when the industrialization of developing countries created a need for more research an cultural differences (Honold, 1999), resulting in an increased interest in the universal applicability of ergonomic principles. This trend continued after the reunification of Germany and the emergence of market economies in Eastern Europe (Nielsen, 1990). In the mid-1990s, as markets outside the U.S. rapidly expanded, it became necessary to develop appropriate user interfaces for non-Western cultures in order to facilitate international cooperation. This fresh impetus for research led to the development of practical guidelines and a body of Gase studies and examples of possible solutions. Most recently we have seen attempts to provide a theoretical foundation for cross-cultural usability engineering and experimental comparison studies (Honold, 1999).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.257-310

2.522415E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313808 = sum of:
    0.0035313808 = weight(_text_:information in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035313808 = score(doc=4270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 38(2004), S.87-144