Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00942595 = product of:
  0.06598165 = sum of:
    0.01804893 = weight(_text_:information in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01804893 = score(doc=1626,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
    0.047932718 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047932718 = score(doc=1626,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Most of the criteria proposed to date for the evaluation of OPACs focus on evaluation of their retrieval function. Argues that the storage function is more important because the quality of information retrieval systems is dependent on the quality of stored information as well as the description and depth of indexing of stored information. States that OPACs should therefore be evaluated from the perspectives of both storage and retrieval functions. Examines 4 studies on criteria for evaluating OPACs and suggests a new evaluation framework based on the work of C.R. Hildreth

Source

Library and information science. 1996, no.35, S.41-49

0.004591069 = product of:
  0.06427497 = sum of:
    0.06427497 = weight(_text_:wide in 871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06427497 = score(doc=871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.48953426 = fieldWeight in 871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=871)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In 1991 60,4% of Japanese university libraries had introduced computerized systems and 57,5% of these had computerized catalogues. In this context, discusses the following: subject searching in computerized catalogues; standardisation of OPACs, particularly as these are now available to a wide range of external users; and access to journal articles, especially in view of increasing journal purchase relative to books

0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3446, 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=3446)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=3446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3446)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

A survey of Japanese OPACs available on the Internet was conducted relating to use of keywords for subject access. The findings suggest that present OPACs are not capable of storing subject-oriented information. Currently available keyword access derives from a merely title-based retrieval system. Contents data should be added to bibliographic records as an efficient way of providing subject access, and costings for this process should be estimated. Word standardisation issues must also be addressed

0.0017118829 = product of:
  0.023966359 = sum of:
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.001008966 = product of:
  0.014125523 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 6437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=6437,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6437, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6437)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Library and information science. 1999, no.41, S.1-15