Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  1. Chen, X.: Indexing consistency between online catalogues (2008) 0.03 
    0.032197874 = product of:
  0.1333912 = sum of:
    0.017416792 = weight(_text_:und in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017416792 = score(doc=2209,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.016844876 = weight(_text_:aus in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016844876 = score(doc=2209,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.089384764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4113739 = idf(docFreq=3965, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.18845356 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4113739 = idf(docFreq=3965, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
    0.020428188 = weight(_text_:der in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020428188 = score(doc=2209,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.34902605 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
    0.017416792 = weight(_text_:und in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017416792 = score(doc=2209,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.020428188 = weight(_text_:der in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020428188 = score(doc=2209,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.34902605 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
    0.020428188 = weight(_text_:der in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020428188 = score(doc=2209,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.34902605 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
    0.020428188 = weight(_text_:der in 2209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020428188 = score(doc=2209,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.34902605 = fieldWeight in 2209, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2209)
  0.2413793 = coord(7/29)
    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
  2. Ladewig, C.; Rieger, M.: Ähnlichkeitsmessung mit und ohne aspektische Indexierung (1998) 0.02 
    0.024051292 = product of:
  0.11624791 = sum of:
    0.025438854 = weight(_text_:und in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025438854 = score(doc=2526,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.01634255 = weight(_text_:der in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01634255 = score(doc=2526,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
    0.025438854 = weight(_text_:und in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025438854 = score(doc=2526,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.01634255 = weight(_text_:der in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01634255 = score(doc=2526,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
    0.01634255 = weight(_text_:der in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01634255 = score(doc=2526,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
    0.01634255 = weight(_text_:der in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01634255 = score(doc=2526,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
  0.20689656 = coord(6/29)
    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
  3. Gretz, M.; Thomas, M.: Indexierungen in biomedizinischen Literaturdatenbanken : eine vergleichende Analyse (1991) 0.02 
    0.023704575 = product of:
  0.11457211 = sum of:
    0.022258999 = weight(_text_:und in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022258999 = score(doc=5104,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.017513525 = weight(_text_:der in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017513525 = score(doc=5104,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.29922754 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
    0.022258999 = weight(_text_:und in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022258999 = score(doc=5104,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.017513525 = weight(_text_:der in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017513525 = score(doc=5104,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.29922754 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
    0.017513525 = weight(_text_:der in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017513525 = score(doc=5104,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.29922754 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
    0.017513525 = weight(_text_:der in 5104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017513525 = score(doc=5104,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05852912 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.29922754 = fieldWeight in 5104, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5104)
  0.20689656 = coord(6/29)
    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
  4. Tinker, F.F.: Imprecision in meaning measured by inconsistency of indexing (1966-68) 0.00 
    0.001961483 = product of:
  0.028441504 = sum of:
    0.014220752 = weight(_text_:und in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014220752 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.014220752 = weight(_text_:und in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014220752 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
  0.06896552 = coord(2/29)
    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
  5. Chan, L.M.: Inter-indexer consistency in subject cataloging (1989) 0.00 
    0.0015691865 = product of:
  0.022753203 = sum of:
    0.011376602 = weight(_text_:und in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011376602 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.011376602 = weight(_text_:und in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011376602 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
  0.06896552 = coord(2/29)
    Content
    Die Studie enthält Konsistenzzahlen bezogen auf die LCSH. Diese Zahlen sind kategorienbezogen und können teilweise auf die RSWK übertragen werden
  6. Hurwitz, F.I.: ¬A study of indexer consistency (1969) 0.00 
    0.0015085653 = product of:
  0.043748394 = sum of:
    0.043748394 = weight(_text_:20 in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043748394 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.60740936 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Source
    American documentation. 20(1969), S.92-94
  7. Cooper, W.S.: Is interindexer consistency a hobgoblin? (1969) 0.00 
    0.0015085653 = product of:
  0.043748394 = sum of:
    0.043748394 = weight(_text_:20 in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043748394 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.60740936 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Source
    American documentation. 20(1969), S.268-278
  8. White, H.; Willis, C.; Greenberg, J.: HIVEing : the effect of a semantic web technology on inter-indexer consistency (2014) 0.00 
    0.0013663529 = product of:
  0.019812116 = sum of:
    0.010937098 = weight(_text_:20 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010937098 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
    0.008875018 = product of:
      0.017750036 = sum of:
        0.017750036 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017750036 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09175488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026201984 = 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)
  0.06896552 = coord(2/29)
    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.
    Date
    10. 3.1997 20:31:13
  9. Zunde, P.; Dexter, M.E.: Indexing consistency and quality (1969) 0.00 
    0.0012068523 = product of:
  0.034998715 = sum of:
    0.034998715 = weight(_text_:20 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034998715 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.4859275 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Source
    American documentation. 20(1969), S.259-267
  10. Swanson, D.R.: ¬The evidence underlying the Cranfield results (1965) 0.00 
    0.0012068523 = product of:
  0.034998715 = sum of:
    0.034998715 = weight(_text_:20 in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034998715 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.4859275 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Source
    Library quarterly. 35(1965), S.1-20
  11. Azubuike, A.A.; Umoh, J.S.: Computerized information storage and retrieval systems (1988) 0.00 
    0.0012068523 = product of:
  0.034998715 = sum of:
    0.034998715 = weight(_text_:20 in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034998715 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.4859275 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Source
    International library review. 20(1988), S.101-110
  12. Bellamy, L.M.; Bickham, L.: Thesaurus development for subject cataloging (1989) 0.00 
    0.0011768898 = product of:
  0.017064901 = sum of:
    0.008532451 = weight(_text_:und in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008532451 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.008532451 = weight(_text_:und in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008532451 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
  0.06896552 = coord(2/29)
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  13. Harter, S.P.; Cheng, Y.-R.: Colinked descriptors : improving vocabulary selection for end-user searching (1996) 0.00 
    0.0011768898 = product of:
  0.017064901 = sum of:
    0.008532451 = weight(_text_:und in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008532451 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.008532451 = weight(_text_:und in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008532451 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
  0.06896552 = coord(2/29)
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  14. Kedar, R.; Shoham, S.: ¬The subject cataloging of monographs with the use of a thesaurus (2003) 0.00 
    0.0011768898 = product of:
  0.017064901 = sum of:
    0.008532451 = weight(_text_:und in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008532451 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
    0.008532451 = weight(_text_:und in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008532451 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05807321 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = 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)
  0.06896552 = coord(2/29)
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  15. Soergel, D.: Indexing and retrieval performance : the logical evidence (1997) 0.00 
    9.293725E-4 = product of:
  0.026951803 = sum of:
    0.026951803 = weight(_text_:aus in 578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026951803 = score(doc=578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.089384764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4113739 = idf(docFreq=3965, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.30152568 = fieldWeight in 578, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4113739 = idf(docFreq=3965, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=578)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Footnote
    Wiederabdruck aus: JASIS 45(1994) no.8, S.589-599
  16. Mann, T.: 'Cataloging must change!' and indexer consistency studies : misreading the evidence at our peril (1997) 0.00 
    7.8387355E-4 = product of:
  0.022732332 = sum of:
    0.022732332 = weight(_text_:20 in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022732332 = score(doc=492,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.31561917 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Abstract
    An earlier article ('Cataloging must change' by D. Gregor and C. Mandel in: Library journal 116(1991) no.6, S.42-47) has popularized the belief that there is low consistency (only 10-20% agreement) among subject cataloguers in assigning LCSH. Because of this alleged lack og consistency, the article suggests, cataloguers 'can be more accepting in variations in subject choices' in copy cataloguing. Argues that this inference is based on a serious misreading of previous studies of indexer consistency. The 10-20% figure actually derives from studies of people trying to guess the same natural language key words, precisely in the absence of vocabulary control mechanisms such as thesauri or LCSH. Concludes that sources cited fail support their conclusion and some directly contradict it. Raises the concern that a naive acceptance by the library profession of the 10-20% claim can only have negative consequences for the quality of subject cataloguing created, and accepted throughout the country
  17. Morris, L.R.: ¬The frequency of use of Library of Congress Classification numbers and Dewey Decimal Classification numbers in the MARC file in the field of library science (1991) 0.00 
    7.4670167E-4 = product of:
  0.021654349 = sum of:
    0.021654349 = weight(_text_:20 in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021654349 = score(doc=2308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.3006523 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Abstract
    The LCC and DDC systems were devised and updated by librarians who had and have no access to the eventual frequency of use of each number in those classification systems. 80% of the monographs in a MARC file of over 1.000.000 records are classified into 20% of the classification numbers in the field of library science and only 20% of the mongraphs are classified into 80% of the classification numbers in the field of library science. Classification of monographs coulld be made easier and performed more accurately if many of the little used and unused numbers were eliminated and many of the most crowded numbers were expanded. A number of examples are included
  18. 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 
    7.3448423E-4 = product of:
  0.021300042 = sum of:
    0.021300042 = product of:
      0.042600084 = sum of:
        0.042600084 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042600084 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09175488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026201984 = 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)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
  19. Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002) 0.00 
    6.715148E-4 = product of:
  0.0097369645 = sum of:
    0.006186957 = weight(_text_:20 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006186957 = score(doc=1858,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.08590066 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.003550007 = product of:
      0.007100014 = sum of:
        0.007100014 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007100014 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09175488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026201984 = 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)
  0.06896552 = coord(2/29)
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    4.10.2003 19:20:59
    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.
  20. Saarti, J.: Consistency of subject indexing of novels by public library professionals and patrons (2002) 0.00 
    6.0342613E-4 = product of:
  0.017499357 = sum of:
    0.017499357 = weight(_text_:20 in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017499357 = score(doc=4473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07202456 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026201984 = queryNorm
        0.24296375 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
  0.03448276 = coord(1/29)
    Date
    10. 3.1997 20:31:13

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 37
  • d 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 36
  • m 1
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes