Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

0.058527745 = product of:
  0.14631936 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=4998,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Describes information system and its various components-index file construstion, query formulation and searching. Discusses an indexing system, and brings out the need for its evaluation. Explains the concept of the efficiency of indexing systems and discusses factors which control this efficiency. Gives criteria for evaluation. Discusses recall and precision ratios, as also noise ratio, novelty ratio, and exhaustivity and specificity and the impact of each on the efficiency of indexing system. Mention also various steps for evaluation.

0.05586193 = product of:
  0.13965483 = sum of:
    0.12429313 = weight(_text_:index in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12429313 = score(doc=7247,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6689808 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
    0.015361699 = product of:
      0.046085097 = sum of:
        0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046085097 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.038164005 = product of:
  0.09541001 = sum of:
    0.06279058 = weight(_text_:index in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06279058 = score(doc=2287,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=2287,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.03469106 = product of:
  0.08672766 = sum of:
    0.06342807 = weight(_text_:index in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06342807 = score(doc=4214,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

An important stage in the process or retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objects; this operation is often undertaken manually, just as index terms are often manually assigned to documents in a conventional retrieval system. In an earlier article (1994), the results were published of a study in which several different sets of links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full-text documents. These results showed little similarity between the link-sets, a finding that was comparable with those of studies of inter-indexer consistency, which suggest that there is generally only a low level of agreement between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by different indexers. In this article, a description is provided of an investigation into the nature of the relationship existing between (i) the levels of inter-linker consistency obtaining among the group of hypertext databases used in our earlier experiments, and (ii) the levels of effectiveness of a number of searches carried out in those databases. An account is given of the implementation of the searches and of the methods used in the calculation of numerical values expressing their effectiveness. Analysis of the results of a comparison between recorded levels of consistency and those of effectiveness does not allow us to draw conclusions about the consistency - effectiveness relationship that are equivalent to those drawn in comparable studies of inter-indexer consistency

0.028704265 = product of:
  0.14352132 = sum of:
    0.14352132 = weight(_text_:index in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14352132 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.7724724 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.026178543 = product of:
  0.065446354 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 2655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=2655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2655)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

29. 8.2004 16:17:19

0.0215282 = product of:
  0.107641 = sum of:
    0.107641 = weight(_text_:index in 1957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107641 = score(doc=1957,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 1957, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1957)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.020296982 = product of:
  0.10148491 = sum of:
    0.10148491 = weight(_text_:index in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10148491 = score(doc=4778,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5462205 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.019982858 = product of:
  0.04995714 = sum of:
    0.04035608 = weight(_text_:system in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04035608 = score(doc=1781,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.01864397 = product of:
  0.09321985 = sum of:
    0.09321985 = weight(_text_:index in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09321985 = score(doc=2638,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.01864397 = product of:
  0.09321985 = sum of:
    0.09321985 = weight(_text_:index in 3725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09321985 = score(doc=3725,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 3725, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3725)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

When assigning subject headings or index terms to a document, how many terms or phrases should be used to represent the document? The contribution of an indexing phrase to locating and ordering documents can be compared to the contribution of a full-text query to finding documents. The length and number of phrases needed to equal the contribution of a full-text query is the subject of this paper. The appropriate number of phrases is determined in part by the length of the phrases. We suggest several rules that may be used to determine how many subject headings should be assigned, given index phrase lengths, and provide a general model for this process. A difference between characteristics of indexing "hard" science and "social" science literature is suggested.

0.017940167 = product of:
  0.08970083 = sum of:
    0.08970083 = weight(_text_:index in 1511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08970083 = score(doc=1511,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 1511, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1511)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abtracts) started in 1987 as a bimonthly indexing and abstracting service in the society field, aimed at practitioners as well as sociologists. Considers the following aspects of the service: arrangement of ASSIA; journal coverage; indexing approach; services for subscribers; and who are the users?

0.017055526 = product of:
  0.042638816 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=4152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A software system has been developed which orders citations retrieved from an online database in terms of relevancy. The system resulted from an effort generated by NASA's Technology Utilization Program to create new advanced software tools to largely automate the process of determining relevancy of database citations retrieved to support large technology transfer studies. The ranking is based on the generation of an enriched vocabulary using lexical association methods, a user assessment of the vocabulary and a combination of the user assessment and the lexical metric. One of the key elements in relevancy ranking is the enriched vocabulary -the terms mst be both unique and descriptive. This paper examines term uniqueness. Six lexical association methods were employed to generate characteristic word indices. A limited subset of the terms - the highest 20,40,60 and 7,5% of the uniquess words - we compared and uniquess factors developed. Computational times were also measured. It was found that methods based on occurrences and signal produced virtually the same terms. The limited subset of terms producedby the exact and centroid discrimination value were also nearly identical. Unique terms sets were produced by teh occurrence, variance and discrimination value (centroid), An end-user evaluation showed that the generated terms were largely distinct and had values of word precision which were consistent with values of the search precision.

Date

23.11.1995 11:29:46

0.015536643 = product of:
  0.07768321 = sum of:
    0.07768321 = weight(_text_:index in 4386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07768321 = score(doc=4386,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.418113 = fieldWeight in 4386, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4386)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The 'KeyWords Plus' in the Science Citation Index database represents an approach to combining citation and semantic indexing in describing the document content. This paper explores the similariites or dissimilarities between citation-semantic and analytic indexing. The dataset consisted of over 400 matching records in the SCI and MEDLINE databases on antibiotic resistance in pneumonia. The degree of similarity in indexing terms was found to vary on a scale from completely different to completely identical with various levels in between. The within-document similarity in the 2 databases was measured by a variation on the Jaccard coefficient - the Inclusion Index. The average inclusion coefficient was 0,4134 for SCI and 0,3371 for Medline. The 20 terms occuring most frequently in each database were identified. The 2 groups of terms shared the same terms that consist of the 'intellectual base' for the subject. conceptual similarity was analyzed through scatterplots of matching and nonmatching terms vs. partially identical and broader/narrower terms. The study also found that both databases differed in assigning terms in various semantic categories. Implications of this research and further studies are suggested

Object

Science Citation Index

0.014352133 = product of:
  0.07176066 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=3833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Presents results of an experiment in which 8 indexers (4 beginners and 4 experts) were asked to index the same 4 documents with 2 different thesauri. The 3 kind of verbal reports provide complementary data on strategic behaviour. it is of prime importance to consider the indexing task as an ill-defined problem, where the solutionm is partly defined by the indexer

0.013160261 = product of:
  0.032900654 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.013047772 = product of:
  0.06523886 = sum of:
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=3516,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Report of a study comparing 2 methods of indexing: LEXINET, a computerised system for indexing titles and summaries only; and manual indexing of full texts, using the thesaurus developed by French Electricity (EDF). Both systems were applied to a collection of approximately 2.000 documents on artifical intelligence from the EDF data base. The results were then analysed to compare quantitative performance (number and range of terms) and qualitative performance (ambiguity of terms, specificity, variability, consistency). Overall, neither system proved ideal: LEXINET was deficient as regards lack of accessibility and excessive ambiguity; while the manual system gave rise to an over-wide variation of terms. The ideal system would appear to be a combination of automatic and manual systems, on the evidence produced here.

0.012685614 = product of:
  0.06342807 = sum of:
    0.06342807 = weight(_text_:index in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06342807 = score(doc=4488,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to report a project to investigate the degree of inter-indexer consistency in the assignment of controlled vocabulary topical subject index terms to identical graphical images by different indexers at the National Library of Wales (NLW). Design/methodology/approach - An experimental quantitative methodology was devised to investigate inter-indexer consistency. Additionally, the project investigated the relationship, if any, between indexing exhaustivity and consistency, and the relationship, if any, between indexing consistency/exhaustivity and broad category of graphic format. Findings - Inter-indexer consistency in the assignment of topical subject index terms to graphic materials at the NLW was found to be generally low and highly variable. Inter-indexer consistency fell within the range 10.8 per cent to 48.0 per cent. Indexing exhaustivity varied substantially from indexer to indexer, with a mean assignment of 3.8 terms by each indexer to each image, falling within the range 2.5 to 4.7 terms. The broad category of graphic format, whether photographic or non-photographic, was found to have little influence on either inter-indexer consistency or indexing exhaustivity. Indexing exhaustivity and inter-indexer consistency exhibited a tendency toward a direct, positive relationship. The findings are necessarily limited as this is a small-scale study within a single institution. Originality/value - Previous consistency studies have almost exclusively investigated the indexing of print materials, with very little research published for non-print media. With the literature also rich in discussion of the added complexities of subjectively representing the intellectual content of visual media, this study attempts to enrich existing knowledge on indexing consistency for graphic materials and to address a noticeable gap in information theory.

0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 4028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=4028,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 4028, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4028)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0092261685 = product of:
  0.04613084 = sum of:
    0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04613084 = score(doc=2289,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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