-
Lathrop, L.: ¬An indexer's guide to the Internet (1999)
0.00
9.842472E-4 = product of:
0.019684944 = sum of:
0.019684944 = product of:
0.03936989 = sum of:
0.03936989 = weight(_text_:22 in 485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03936989 = score(doc=485,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 485, 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=485)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Indexer 22(2000) no.1, S.51 (R. Davis)
-
Van der Meij, H.: Styling the index : is it time for a change? (2002)
0.00
9.344728E-4 = product of:
0.018689455 = sum of:
0.018689455 = weight(_text_:der in 3822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018689455 = score(doc=3822,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054091092 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.34551817 = fieldWeight in 3822, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3822)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
-
Weinberg, B.H.: ¬The body of a reference work in relation to its index : an analysis of wordsmanship (1996)
0.00
9.279572E-4 = product of:
0.018559143 = sum of:
0.018559143 = product of:
0.037118286 = sum of:
0.037118286 = weight(_text_:22 in 6940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037118286 = score(doc=6940,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 6940, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6940)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 8. 3.1997 20:22:25
- Source
- Indexer. 20(1996) no.1, S.18-22
-
Olason, S.C.: Let's get usable! : Usability studies for indexes (2000)
0.00
9.279572E-4 = product of:
0.018559143 = sum of:
0.018559143 = product of:
0.037118286 = sum of:
0.037118286 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037118286 = score(doc=882,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: http://www.theindexer.org/files/22-2-olason.pdf.
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.2, S.91-95
-
Bell, H.K.: History of societies of indexing : part VII: 1992-95 (2000)
0.00
8.20206E-4 = product of:
0.01640412 = sum of:
0.01640412 = product of:
0.03280824 = sum of:
0.03280824 = weight(_text_:22 in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03280824 = score(doc=113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Source
- Indexer. 22(2000) no.2, S.81-83
-
Simpkins, J.: Sic, sic, sic! (1988)
0.00
8.0097665E-4 = product of:
0.016019532 = sum of:
0.016019532 = weight(_text_:der in 4116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016019532 = score(doc=4116,freq=2.0), product of:
0.054091092 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.29615843 = fieldWeight in 4116, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4116)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Präsentation eines Registers zu dem Buch: 'Sallis, J.: Questions govenors ask. 1984' mit 14 Fehlern, wie man sie bei der Herstellung von Registern vermeiden sollte
-
Crawley, J.; Adams, C.: InfoAccess Project : comparing print, CD-ROM, and inhouse indexes (1991)
0.00
6.5616483E-4 = product of:
0.013123296 = sum of:
0.013123296 = product of:
0.026246592 = sum of:
0.026246592 = weight(_text_:22 in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026246592 = score(doc=4824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4824, 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=4824)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Describes the InfoAccess Project at the Univ of Saskatchewan Libraries which compared searching of manual and automated indexes by 22 undergraduate psychology students to determine their searching preferences by ranking 'Psychological abstracts' in 3 formats: print, CD-ROM and a locally mounted tape service called InfoAccess. Their satisfaction regarding the physical environment, equipment, and instructional aids was also recorded. Users preferred to search with CD-ROM, but found InfoAccess to be an acceptable alternative
-
Diodato, V.: Duplicate entries versus see cross references in back-of-the book indexes (1994)
0.00
6.5616483E-4 = product of:
0.013123296 = sum of:
0.013123296 = product of:
0.026246592 = sum of:
0.026246592 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026246592 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1427, 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=1427)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Considers whether, when there is a choice, a back-of-book indexer should use a duplicate entry or a see reference. Guidelines suggest that it is preferable to use the duplicate entry if it would not add to the length or complexity of the index. Studies 1.100 see references in 202 back-of-book indexes and concludes that 22% of the see references should have been replaced by duplicate entries. Failure to select a duplicate entry instead of a see reference occurs most frequently in science and techology books and in indexes with no subheadings
-
Shuttleworth, C.: Marot, Hofstadter, index (1998)
0.00
6.5616483E-4 = product of:
0.013123296 = sum of:
0.013123296 = product of:
0.026246592 = sum of:
0.026246592 = weight(_text_:22 in 4642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026246592 = score(doc=4642,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4642, 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=4642)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Source
- Indexer. 21(1998) no.1, S.22-23
-
Hodge, G.M.: Automated support to indexing (1992)
0.00
5.7414424E-4 = product of:
0.011482884 = sum of:
0.011482884 = product of:
0.022965768 = sum of:
0.022965768 = weight(_text_:22 in 7288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022965768 = score(doc=7288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7288, 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=7288)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: JASIS 44(1993) no.2, S.119-121 (B.H. Weinberg); International cataloguing and bibliographic control 22(1993) no.2, S.34 (E. Svenonius); Information processing and management 29(1993) no.4, S.528-531 (L.L.Hill)
-
Schroeder, K.A.: Layered indexing of images (1998)
0.00
5.7414424E-4 = product of:
0.011482884 = sum of:
0.011482884 = product of:
0.022965768 = sum of:
0.022965768 = weight(_text_:22 in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022965768 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4640, 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=4640)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 9. 4.2000 17:22:00
-
Miksa, F.: ¬The DDC Relative Index (2006)
0.00
4.10103E-4 = product of:
0.00820206 = sum of:
0.00820206 = product of:
0.01640412 = sum of:
0.01640412 = weight(_text_:22 in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01640412 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08479747 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.024215192 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5775, 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=5775)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- The "Relative Index" of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is investigated over the span of its lifetime in 22 editions of the DDC as to its character as a concept indexing system, its provision of conceptual contexts for the terms it lists, and the way in which the index intersects with special tables of categories used in the system. Striking features of the index that are discussed include how the locater function of an index is expressed in it, its practice of including concepts that have not been given specific notational locations in the system, its two methods of providing conceptual contexts for indexed terms (by means of the notation of the system and by the insertion of enhancement terms that portray conceptual context), and how the index has intersected with three types of special tables of categories in the system. Critical issues raised include the indexing of constructed or synthesized complex concepts, inconsistencies in how enhancement terms are portrayed and the absence of them in some instances, the problem of equating conceptual context with disciplinary context, and problems associated with not indexing one type of special table. Summary and conclusions are extended to problems that arise in studying the index.
