Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013093497 = product of:
  0.065467484 = sum of:
    0.026080986 = weight(_text_:und in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026080986 = score(doc=376,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.40608138 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
    0.036919862 = product of:
      0.073839724 = sum of:
        0.073839724 = weight(_text_:auskunft in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073839724 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19680773 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7916126 = idf(docFreq=134, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.37518713 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7916126 = idf(docFreq=134, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 376, 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=376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag möchte einen Überblick über die in der Literatur diskutierten Möglichkeiten, Herausforderungen und Grenzen geben, Retrieval als eine extrinsische Evaluierungsmethode für die Ergebnisse verbaler Sacherschließung zu nutzen. Die inhaltliche Erschließung im Allgemeinen und die Verschlagwortung im Besonderen können intrinsisch oder extrinsisch evaluiert werden. Die intrinsische Evaluierung bezieht sich auf Eigenschaften der Erschließung, von denen vermutet wird, dass sie geeignete Indikatoren für die Qualität der Erschließung sind, wie formale Einheitlichkeit (im Hinblick auf die Anzahl zugewiesener Deskriptoren pro Dokument, auf die Granularität usw.), Konsistenz oder Übereinstimmung der Ergebnisse verschiedener Erschließer:innen. Bei einer extrinsischen Evaluierung geht es darum, die Qualität der gewählten Deskriptoren daran zu messen, wie gut sie sich tatsächlich bei der Suche bewähren. Obwohl die extrinsische Evaluierung direktere Auskunft darüber gibt, ob die Erschließung ihren Zweck erfüllt, und daher den Vorzug verdienen sollte, ist sie kompliziert und oft problematisch. In einem Retrievalsystem greifen verschiedene Algorithmen und Datenquellen in vielschichtiger Weise ineinander und interagieren bei der Evaluierung darüber hinaus noch mit Nutzer:innen und Rechercheaufgaben. Die Evaluierung einer Komponente im System kann nicht einfach dadurch vorgenommen werden, dass man sie austauscht und mit einer anderen Komponente vergleicht, da die gleiche Ressource oder der gleiche Algorithmus sich in unterschiedlichen Umgebungen unterschiedlich verhalten kann. Wir werden relevante Evaluierungsansätze vorstellen und diskutieren, und zum Abschluss einige Empfehlungen für die Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext von Retrieval geben.

Series

Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis; 70

2.6310782E-4 = product of:
  0.0039466172 = sum of:
    0.0039466172 = product of:
      0.0078932345 = sum of:
        0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078932345 = score(doc=688,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of search interfaces of Swedish online museum collections, focussing on search functionalities with particular reference to subject searching, as well as the use of controlled vocabularies, with the purpose of identifying which improvements of the search interfaces are needed to ensure high-quality information retrieval for the end user. Design/methodology/approach In the first step, a set of 21 search interface criteria was identified, based on related research and current standards in the domain of cultural heritage knowledge organization. Secondly, a complete set of Swedish museums that provide online access to their collections was identified, comprising nine cross-search services and 91 individual museums' websites. These 100 websites were each evaluated against the 21 criteria, between 1 July and 31 August 2020. Findings Although many standards and guidelines are in place to ensure quality-controlled subject indexing, which in turn support information retrieval of relevant resources (as individual or full search results), the study shows that they are not broadly implemented, resulting in information retrieval failures for the end user. The study also demonstrates a strong need for the implementation of controlled vocabularies in these museums. Originality/value This study is a rare piece of research which examines subject searching in online museums; the 21 search criteria and their use in the analysis of the complete set of online collections of a country represents a considerable and unique contribution to the fields of knowledge organization and information retrieval of cultural heritage. Its particular value lies in showing how the needs of end users, many of which are documented and reflected in international standards and guidelines, should be taken into account in designing search tools for these museums; especially so in subject searching, which is the most complex and yet the most common type of search. Much effort has been invested into digitizing cultural heritage collections, but access to them is hindered by poor search functionality. This study identifies which are the most important aspects to improve.

2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 5982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=5982,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5982, 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=5982)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

As the humanities develop in the realm of increasingly more pronounced digital scholarship, it is important to provide quality subject access to a vast range of heterogeneous information objects in digital services. The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of affairs of the use of subject index terms in humanities journal articles with particular reference to the well-established subject access needs of humanities researchers, with the purpose of identifying which improvements are needed in this context. Design/methodology/approach The comparison of subject metadata on a sample of 649 peer-reviewed journal articles from across the humanities is conducted in a university repository, against Scopus, the former reflecting local and national policies and the latter being the most comprehensive international abstract and citation database of research output. Findings The study shows that established bibliographic objectives to ensure subject access for humanities journal articles are not supported in either the world's largest commercial abstract and citation database Scopus or the local repository of a public university in Sweden. The indexing policies in the two services do not seem to address the needs of humanities scholars for highly granular subject index terms with appropriate facets; no controlled vocabularies for any humanities discipline are used whatsoever. Originality/value In all, not much has changed since 1990s when indexing for the humanities was shown to lag behind the sciences. The community of researchers and information professionals, today working together on digital humanities projects, as well as interdisciplinary research teams, should demand that their subject access needs be fulfilled, especially in commercial services like Scopus and discovery services.

2.3021935E-4 = product of:
  0.00345329 = sum of:
    0.00345329 = product of:
      0.00690658 = sum of:
        0.00690658 = weight(_text_:information in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00690658 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 718, 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=718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In the face of the ever-increasing document volume, libraries around the globe are more and more exploring (semi-) automated approaches to subject indexing. This helps sustain bibliographic objectives, enrich metadata, and establish more connections across documents from various collections, effectively leading to improved information retrieval and access. However, generally accepted automated approaches that are functional in operative systems are lacking. This article aims to provide an overview of basic principles used for automated subject indexing, major approaches in relation to their possible application in actual library systems, existing working examples, as well as related challenges calling for further research.

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 463, 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=463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.188-203