Search (61 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  1. Gil-Leiva, I.; Alonso-Arroyo, A.: Keywords given by authors of scientific articles in database descriptors (2007) 0.02
    0.022701995 = product of:
      0.08513248 = sum of:
        0.015904883 = product of:
          0.031809766 = sum of:
            0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031809766 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032484557 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
        0.0049332716 = product of:
          0.009866543 = sum of:
            0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009866543 = score(doc=211,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    
    Abstract
    In this article, the authors analyze the keywords given by authors of scientific articles and the descriptors assigned to the articles to ascertain the presence of the keywords in the descriptors. Six-hundred forty INSPEC (Information Service for Physics, Engineering, and Computing), CAB (Current Agriculture Bibliography) abstracts, ISTA (Information Science and Technology Abstracts), and LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts) database records were consulted. After detailed comparisons, it was found that keywords provided by authors have an important presence in the database descriptors studied; nearly 25% of all the keywords appeared in exactly the same form as descriptors, with another 21% though normalized, still detected in the descriptors. This means that almost 46% of keywords appear in the descriptors, either as such or after normalization. Elsewhere, three distinct indexing policies appear, one represented by INSPEC and LISA (indexers seem to have freedom to assign the descriptors they deem necessary); another is represented by CAB (no record has fewer than four descriptors and, in general, a large number of descriptors is employed). In contrast, in ISTA, a certain institutional code exists towards economy in indexing because 84% of records contain only four descriptors.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1175-1187
  2. Peset, F.; Garzón-Farinós, F.; González, L.M.; García-Massó, X.; Ferrer-Sapena, A.; Toca-Herrera, J.L.; Sánchez-Pérez, E.A.: Survival analysis of author keywords : an application to the library and information sciences area (2020) 0.02
    0.022525748 = product of:
      0.08447155 = sum of:
        0.015904883 = product of:
          0.031809766 = sum of:
            0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031809766 = score(doc=5774,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032484557 = score(doc=5774,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=5774,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
        0.004272339 = product of:
          0.008544678 = sum of:
            0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008544678 = score(doc=5774,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    
    Abstract
    Our purpose is to adapt a statistical method for the analysis of discrete numerical series to the keywords appearing in scientific articles of a given area. As an example, we apply our methodological approach to the study of the keywords in the Library and Information Sciences (LIS) area. Our objective is to detect the new author keywords that appear in a fixed knowledge area in the period of 1 year in order to quantify the probabilities of survival for 10 years as a function of the impact of the journals where they appeared. Many of the new keywords appearing in the LIS field are ephemeral. Actually, more than half are never used again. In general, the terms most commonly used in the LIS area come from other areas. The average survival time of these keywords is approximately 3 years, being slightly higher in the case of words that were published in journals classified in the second quartile of the area. We believe that measuring the appearance and disappearance of terms will allow understanding some relevant aspects of the evolution of a discipline, providing in this way a new bibliometric approach.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.4, S.462-473
  3. Chen, X.: Indexing consistency between online catalogues (2008) 0.01
    0.006899553 = product of:
      0.051746644 = sum of:
        0.019262085 = weight(_text_:und in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019262085 = score(doc=2209,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.29991096 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
        0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032484557 = score(doc=2209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    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.
    Imprint
    Berlin : Humboldt-Universität / Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft
  4. Ladewig, C.; Rieger, M.: Ähnlichkeitsmessung mit und ohne aspektische Indexierung (1998) 0.00
    0.0042774263 = product of:
      0.032080695 = sum of:
        0.028134076 = weight(_text_:und in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028134076 = score(doc=2526,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.438048 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
        0.0039466172 = product of:
          0.0078932345 = sum of:
            0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0078932345 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2526, 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=2526)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Für eine fiktive Dokumentmenge wird eine Dokument-Wort-Matrix erstellt und mittels zweier Suchanfragen, ebenfalls als Matrix dargestellt, die Retrievalergebnisse ermittelt. Den Wörtern der Dokumentmenge werden in einem zweiten Schritt Aspekte zugeordnet und die Untersuchung erneut durchgeführt. Ein Vergleich bestätigt die schon früher gefundenen Vorteile des aspektischen Indexierung gegenüber anderen Methoden der Retrievalverbesserung, wie Trunkierung und Controlled Terms
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.8, S.459-462
  5. Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996) 0.00
    0.0028381154 = product of:
      0.04257173 = sum of:
        0.04257173 = sum of:
          0.011162719 = weight(_text_:information in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.011162719 = score(doc=7247,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = queryNorm
              0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
          0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.031409014 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    Describes an experiment comparing the performance of automatic full-text indexing software for personal computers with the human intellectual assignment of indexing terms in each document in a collection. Considers the times required to index the document, to retrieve documents satisfying 5 typical foreseen information needs, and the recall and precision ratios of searching. The software used is QuickFinder facility in WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows
    Source
    Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
  6. Chan, L.M.: Inter-indexer consistency in subject cataloging (1989) 0.00
    0.002203808 = product of:
      0.016528558 = sum of:
        0.012581941 = weight(_text_:und in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012581941 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
        0.0039466172 = product of:
          0.0078932345 = sum of:
            0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0078932345 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2276, 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=2276)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Content
    Die Studie enthält Konsistenzzahlen bezogen auf die LCSH. Diese Zahlen sind kategorienbezogen und können teilweise auf die RSWK übertragen werden
    Source
    Information technology and libraries. 8(1989), S.349-358
  7. Taniguchi, S.: Recording evidence in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata (2005) 0.00
    0.0019651123 = product of:
      0.029476684 = sum of:
        0.029476684 = sum of:
          0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.005919926 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = queryNorm
              0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
          0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.023556758 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Date
    18. 6.2005 13:16:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882
  8. Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000) 0.00
    0.0019651123 = product of:
      0.029476684 = sum of:
        0.029476684 = sum of:
          0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.005919926 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = queryNorm
              0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
          0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.023556758 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 32(2000) no.1, S.4-8
  9. Harter, S.P.; Cheng, Y.-R.: Colinked descriptors : improving vocabulary selection for end-user searching (1996) 0.00
    0.0018163302 = product of:
      0.013622476 = sum of:
        0.009436456 = weight(_text_:und in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009436456 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
        0.0041860198 = product of:
          0.0083720395 = sum of:
            0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0083720395 = score(doc=4216,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.311-325
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  10. Bellamy, L.M.; Bickham, L.: Thesaurus development for subject cataloging (1989) 0.00
    0.0016528559 = product of:
      0.0123964185 = sum of:
        0.009436456 = weight(_text_:und in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009436456 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
        0.002959963 = product of:
          0.005919926 = sum of:
            0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.005919926 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2262, 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=2262)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    The biomedical book collection in the Genetech Library and Information Services was first inventoried and cataloged in 1983 when it totaled about 2000 titles. Cataloging records were retrieved from the OCLC system and used as a basis for cataloging. A year of cataloging produced a list of 1900 subject terms. More than one term describing the same concept often appears on the list, and no hierarchical structure related the terms to one another. As the collection grew, the subject catalog became increasingly inconsistent. To bring consistency to subject cataloging, a thesaurus of biomedical terms was constructed using the list of subject headings as a basis. This thesaurus follows the broad categories of the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings and, with some exceptions, the Guidelines for the Establishment and Development of Monolingual Thesauri. It has enabled the cataloger in providing greater in-depth subject analysis of materials added to the collection and in consistently assigning subject headings to cataloging record.
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  11. Gretz, M.; Thomas, M.: Indexierungen in biomedizinischen Literaturdatenbanken : eine vergleichende Analyse (1991) 0.00
    0.0016411545 = product of:
      0.024617316 = sum of:
        0.024617316 = weight(_text_:und in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024617316 = score(doc=5104,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.38329202 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Abstract
    Auf der Grundlage von vier Originaldokumenten, d.h. dokumentarischen Bezugseinheiten (DBEs), wird die Indexierung in vier biomedizinischen Online-Datenbanken (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS PREVIEWS, SCISEARCH) analysiert. Anhand von Beispielen werden inahltliche Erschließung, Indexierungstiefe, Indexierungsbreite, Indexierungskonsistenz, Präzision (durch syntaktisches Indexieren, Gewichtung, Proximity Operatoren) und Wiederauffindbarkeit (Recall) der in den Datenbanken gespeicherten Dokumentationseinheien (DBEs) untersucht. Die zeitaufwendigere intellektuelle Indexierung bei MEDLINE und EMBASE erweist sich als wesentlich präziser als die schneller verfügbare maschinelle Zuteilung von Deskriptoren in BIOSIS PREVIEWS und SCISEARCH. In Teil 1 der Untersuchung werden die Indexierungen in MEDLINE und EMBASE, in Teil 2 die Deskriptorenzuteilungen in BIOSIS PREVIEWS und SCISEARCH verglichen
  12. White, H.; Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.: HIVEing : the effect of a semantic web technology on inter-indexer consistency (2014) 0.00
    0.0016375937 = product of:
      0.024563905 = sum of:
        0.024563905 = sum of:
          0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0049332716 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = queryNorm
              0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
          0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.019630633 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    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.
  13. 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
    0.0015704506 = product of:
      0.023556758 = sum of:
        0.023556758 = product of:
          0.047113515 = sum of:
            0.047113515 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047113515 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
  14. Tinker, F.F.: Imprecision in meaning measured by inconsistency of indexing (1966-68) 0.00
    0.0010484952 = product of:
      0.015727427 = sum of:
        0.015727427 = weight(_text_:und in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015727427 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Content
    Ergebnisse: (1) Wenn SW frei gewählt, Recherche um so schwieriger, je mehr SW; (2) 'ältere' SW häufiger und weniger genau verwendet als 'jüngere'; (3) viele Wörter mit ungenauer Bedeutung
  15. Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990) 0.00
    9.1609627E-4 = product of:
      0.013741443 = sum of:
        0.013741443 = product of:
          0.027482886 = sum of:
            0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027482886 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
  16. 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
    9.1609627E-4 = product of:
      0.013741443 = sum of:
        0.013741443 = product of:
          0.027482886 = sum of:
            0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027482886 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Date
    4. 1.2007 10:22:26
  17. Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002) 0.00
    7.0952886E-4 = product of:
      0.010642933 = sum of:
        0.010642933 = sum of:
          0.0027906797 = weight(_text_:information in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0027906797 = score(doc=1858,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = 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)
          0.0078522535 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0078522535 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    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.
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science
  18. Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006) 0.00
    6.5435446E-4 = product of:
      0.009815317 = sum of:
        0.009815317 = product of:
          0.019630633 = sum of:
            0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019630633 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = 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)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  19. Kedar, R.; Shoham, S.: ¬The subject cataloging of monographs with the use of a thesaurus (2003) 0.00
    6.2909705E-4 = product of:
      0.009436456 = sum of:
        0.009436456 = weight(_text_:und in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009436456 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  20. Zunde, P.; Dexter, M.E.: Factors affecting indexing performance (1969) 0.00
    5.58136E-4 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = product of:
          0.016744079 = sum of:
            0.016744079 = weight(_text_:information in 7496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016744079 = score(doc=7496,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028978055 = queryNorm
                0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 7496, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7496)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    
    Source
    Cooperating information societies: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, San Francisco, CA, 1.-4.10.1969. Ed.: J.B. North

Authors

Languages

  • e 58
  • d 2
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 58
  • m 1
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…