-
Connell, T.H.: Use of the LCSH system : realities (1996)
0.05
0.053222746 = product of:
0.07983412 = sum of:
0.031532075 = weight(_text_:im in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031532075 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.2186231 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
0.04830204 = product of:
0.07245306 = sum of:
0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03634593 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03610713 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Theme
- Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
-
Deaves, J.C.; Pache, J.E.: Chemical and numerical indexing for the INSPEC database (1989)
0.02
0.024124488 = product of:
0.072373465 = sum of:
0.072373465 = product of:
0.10856019 = sum of:
0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03634593 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
0.07221426 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07221426 = score(doc=2289,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The wealth of chemical information on the INSPEC database is easily retrieved using the printed subject indexes to the associated abstract journals. However, this subject indexing is insufficient for machine retrieval, and free-text searching has special difficulties. An easy-to-use retrieval system has been developed which overcomes many problems, especially the retrieval of non-stoichiometric compositions, which are a feature solid-state chemistry. The scheme is limited to inorganic material, but allows flexibility and identification of dopants, interfaces and surfaces or substrates. At the same time, a system has been introduced for the online retrieval of numerical data included in the data base. This has successfully standardized the way in which such data is held for searching, enabling further refinement of searches where numerical information is significant
-
Boyce, B.R.; McLain, J.P.: Entry point depth and online search using a controlled vocabulary (1989)
0.02
0.021974515 = product of:
0.06592354 = sum of:
0.06592354 = product of:
0.09888531 = sum of:
0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03634593 = score(doc=2287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
0.062539384 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062539384 = score(doc=2287,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The depth of indexing, the number of terms assigned on average to each document in a retrieval system as entry points, has a significantly effect on the standard retrieval performance measures in modern commercial retrieval systems, just as it did in previous experimental work. Tests on the effect of basic index search, as opposed to controlled vocabulary search, in these real systems are quite different than traditional comparisons of free text searching with controlled vocabulary searching. In modern commercial systems the controlled vocabulary serves as a precision device, since the strucure of the default for unqualified search terms in these systems requires that it do so.
-
Rowley, J.: ¬The controlled versus natural indexing languages debate revisited : a perspective on information retrieval practice and research (1994)
0.02
0.021455124 = product of:
0.06436537 = sum of:
0.06436537 = product of:
0.09654805 = sum of:
0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04496643 = score(doc=7151,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
0.051581617 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051581617 = score(doc=7151,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases
-
Braam, R.R.; Bruil, J.: Quality of indexing information : authors' views on indexing of their articles in chemical abstracts online CA-file (1992)
0.02
0.016649358 = product of:
0.049948074 = sum of:
0.049948074 = product of:
0.07492211 = sum of:
0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031153653 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
0.043768454 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043768454 = score(doc=2638,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations
-
Moreiro-González, J.-A.; Bolaños-Mejías, C.: Folksonomy indexing from the assignment of free tags to setup subject : a search analysis into the domain of legal history (2018)
0.01
0.011500487 = product of:
0.03450146 = sum of:
0.03450146 = product of:
0.051752187 = sum of:
0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025961377 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025790809 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The behaviour and lexical quality of the folksonomies is examined by comparing two online social networks: Library-Thing (for books) and Flickr (for photos). We presented a case study that combines quantitative and qualitative elements, singularized by the lexical and functional framework. Our query was made by "Legal History" and by the synonyms "Law History" and "History of Law." We then examined the relevance, consistency and precision of the tags attached to the retrieved documents, in addition to their lexical composition. We identified the difficulties caused by free tagging and some of the folksonomy solutions that have been found to solve them. The results are presented in comparative tables, giving special attention to related tags within each retrieved document. Although the number of ambiguous or inconsistent tags is not very large, these do nevertheless represent the most obvious problem to search and retrieval in folksonomies. Relevance is high when the terms are assigned by especially competent taggers. Even with less expert taggers, ambiguity is often successfully corrected by contextualizing the concepts within related tags. A propinquity to associative and taxonomic lexical semantic knowledge is reached via contextual relationships.
-
Soergel, D.: Indexing and retrieval performance : the logical evidence (1994)
0.01
0.011347376 = product of:
0.034042127 = sum of:
0.034042127 = product of:
0.10212638 = sum of:
0.10212638 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10212638 = score(doc=579,freq=16.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This article presents a logical analysis of the characteristics of indexing and their effects on retrieval performance.It establishes the ability to ask the questions one needs to ask as the foundation of performance evaluation, and recall and discrimination as the basic quantitative performance measures for binary noninteractive retrieval systems. It then defines the characteristics of indexing that affect retrieval - namely, indexing devices, viewpoint-based and importance-based indexing exhaustivity, indexing specifity, indexing correctness, and indexing consistency - and examines in detail their effects on retrieval. It concludes that retrieval performance depends chiefly on the match between indexing and the requirements of the individual query and on the adaption of the query formulation to the characteristics of the retrieval system, and that the ensuing complexity must be considered in the design and testing of retrieval systems
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960)
0.01
0.009217165 = product of:
0.027651494 = sum of:
0.027651494 = product of:
0.08295448 = sum of:
0.08295448 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08295448 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: Evaluation tests of information retrieval systems (1970)
0.01
0.009170066 = product of:
0.027510196 = sum of:
0.027510196 = product of:
0.08253059 = sum of:
0.08253059 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08253059 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Azubuike, A.A.; Umoh, J.S.: Computerized information storage and retrieval systems (1988)
0.01
0.009170066 = product of:
0.027510196 = sum of:
0.027510196 = product of:
0.08253059 = sum of:
0.08253059 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08253059 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Krovetz, R.; Croft, W.B.: Lexical ambiguity and information retrieval (1992)
0.01
0.008023808 = product of:
0.024071421 = sum of:
0.024071421 = product of:
0.07221426 = sum of:
0.07221426 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07221426 = score(doc=4028,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4028, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4028)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Reports on an analysis of lexical ambiguity in information retrieval text collections and on experiments to determine the utility of word meanings for separating relevant from nonrelevant documents. Results show that there is considerable ambiguity even in a specialised database. Word senses provide a significant separation between relevant and nonrelevant documents, but several factors contribute to determining whether disambiguation will make an improvement in performance such as: resolving lexical ambiguity was found to have little impact on retrieval effectiveness for documents that have many words in common with the query. Discusses other uses of word sense disambiguation in an information retrieval context
-
Hersh, W.R.; Hickam, D.H.: ¬A comparison of two methods for indexing and retrieval from a full-text medical database (1992)
0.01
0.008023808 = product of:
0.024071421 = sum of:
0.024071421 = product of:
0.07221426 = sum of:
0.07221426 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07221426 = score(doc=4526,freq=8.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study of 2 information retrieval systems on a 2.000 document full text medical database. The first system, SAPHIRE, features concept based automatic indexing and statistical retrieval techniques, while the second system, SWORD, features traditional word based Boolean techniques, 16 medical students at Oregon Health Sciences Univ. each performed 10 searches and their results, recorded in terms of recall and precision, showed nearly equal performance for both systems. SAPHIRE was also compared with a version of SWORD modified to use automatic indexing and ranked retrieval. Using batch input of queries, the latter method performed slightly better
-
Burgin, R.: ¬The effect of indexing exhaustivity on retrieval performance (1991)
0.01
0.007689334 = product of:
0.023068001 = sum of:
0.023068001 = product of:
0.069204 = sum of:
0.069204 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069204 = score(doc=5262,freq=10.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The study was based on the collection examnined by W.H. Shaw (Inf. proc. man. 26(1990) no.6, S.693-703, 705-718), a test collection of 1239 articles, indexed with the term cystic fibrosis; and 100 queries with 3 sets of relevance evaluations from subject experts. The effect of variations in indexing exhaustivity on retrieval performance in a vector space retrieval system was investigated by using a term weight threshold to construct different document representations for a test collection. Retrieval results showed that retrieval performance, as measured by the mean optimal measure for all queries at a term weight threshold, was highest at the most exhaustive representation, and decreased slightly as terms were eliminated and the indexing representation became less exhaustive. The findings suggest that the vector space model is more robust against variations in indexing exhaustivity that is the single-link clustering model
-
Tseng, Y.-H.: Keyword extraction techniques and relevance feedback (1997)
0.01
0.006948821 = product of:
0.020846462 = sum of:
0.020846462 = product of:
0.062539384 = sum of:
0.062539384 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062539384 = score(doc=1830,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Automatic keyword extraction is an important and fundamental technology in an advanced information retrieval systems. Briefly compares several major keyword extraction methods, lists their advantages and disadvantages, and reports recent research progress in Taiwan. Also describes the application of a keyword extraction algorithm in an information retrieval system for relevance feedback. Preliminary analysis shows that the error rate of extracting relevant keywords is 18%, and that the precision rate is over 50%. The main disadvantage of this approach is that the extraction results depend on the retrieval results, which in turn depend on the data held by the database. Apart from collecting more data, this problem can be alleviated by the application of a thesaurus constructed by the same keyword extraction algorithm
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ¬The Cranfield tests on index language devices (1967)
0.01
0.006877549 = product of:
0.020632647 = sum of:
0.020632647 = product of:
0.06189794 = sum of:
0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06189794 = score(doc=1957,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1957, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1957)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Footnote
- Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.47-58.
-
Haanen, E.: Specificiteit en consistentie : een kwantitatief oderzoek naar trefwoordtoekenning door UBA en UBN (1991)
0.01
0.0065270998 = product of:
0.0195813 = sum of:
0.0195813 = product of:
0.058743894 = sum of:
0.058743894 = weight(_text_:online in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058743894 = score(doc=4778,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Online public access catalogues enable users to undertake subject searching by classification schedules, natural language, or controlled language terminology. In practice the 1st method is little used. Controlled language systems require indexers to index specifically and consistently. A comparative survey was made of indexing practices at Amsterdam and Mijmegen university libraries. On average Amsterdam assigned each document 3.5 index terms against 1.8 at Nijmegen. This discrepancy in indexing policy is the result of long-standing practices in each institution. Nijmegen has failed to utilise the advantages offered by online cataloges
-
Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996)
0.01
0.006144777 = product of:
0.01843433 = sum of:
0.01843433 = product of:
0.055302992 = sum of:
0.055302992 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055302992 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
-
McCarthy, C.: ¬The realibility factor in subject access (1986)
0.01
0.005769195 = product of:
0.017307585 = sum of:
0.017307585 = product of:
0.051922753 = sum of:
0.051922753 = weight(_text_:online in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051922753 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = queryNorm
0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- For truly effective subject access, it is essential that books on any given topic be brought together consistently under the same subject heading. With the advent of online catalogs, this goal has assumed new importance but has also become easier to achieve
-
Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.01
0.00537668 = product of:
0.01613004 = sum of:
0.01613004 = product of:
0.048390117 = sum of:
0.048390117 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048390117 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
-
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)
0.01
0.00537668 = product of:
0.01613004 = sum of:
0.01613004 = product of:
0.048390117 = sum of:
0.048390117 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048390117 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051022716 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 4. 1.2007 10:22:26
