Search (4358 results, page 1 of 218)

0.2128264 = product of:
  0.266033 = sum of:
    0.080696784 = weight(_text_:context in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.080696784 = score(doc=5775,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.45792344 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
    0.11866306 = weight(_text_:index in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11866306 = score(doc=5775,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.63867813 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
    0.057072114 = weight(_text_:system in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057072114 = score(doc=5775,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.42618635 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

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.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Moving beyond the presentation layer: content and context in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System"

0.17917213 = product of:
  0.22396515 = sum of:
    0.1082661 = weight(_text_:context in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1082661 = score(doc=6112,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6143688 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
    0.07611368 = weight(_text_:index in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07611368 = score(doc=6112,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=6112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=6112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 6112, 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=6112)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

Enormous Web search engine databases combined with short search queries result in large result sets that are often difficult to access. Result ranking works fairly well, but users need help when it fails. For these situations, we propose a filtering interface that is inspired by keyword-in-context (KWIC) indices. The user interface lists the most frequent keyword contexts (fKWIC). When a context is selected, the corresponding results are displayed in the result list, allowing users to concentrate on the specific context. We compared the keyword context index user interface to the rank order result listing in an experiment with 36 participants. The results show that the proposed user interface was 29% faster in finding relevant results, and the precision of the selected results was 19% higher. In addition, participants showed positive attitudes toward the system.

0.13530582 = product of:
  0.2255097 = sum of:
    0.08386256 = weight(_text_:context in 985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08386256 = score(doc=985,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.475888 = fieldWeight in 985, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=985)
    0.09321985 = weight(_text_:index in 985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09321985 = score(doc=985,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 985, 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=985)
    0.048427295 = weight(_text_:system in 985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048427295 = score(doc=985,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 985, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=985)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Derek Austin's PRECIS, or PREserved Context Index System, was one of the most sophisticated indexing systems ever developed for text. Austin noted that there are many ways that the meaning of index entries may be misread and misunderstood, if the original context from which the concept came was not present. Drawing on a good understanding of linguistics, Austin and his colleagues developed a highly rigorous, yet not impossibly difficult, set of principles to use in indexing with the help of PRECIS. The system was particularly valuable for generating multiple word orderings of entries that still retained their proper contextual meaning. Much of the need for this feature was obviated by the development of powerful full text searching in information systems, however, and PRECIS receded from view in information science. The final sections of the article that address the details of coding and indexing management are deleted from the text below.

Theme

Preserved Context Index System (PRECIS)

0.09875835 = product of:
  0.16459724 = sum of:
    0.11181675 = weight(_text_:context in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11181675 = score(doc=2636,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6345174 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Structural differences between systems of classification and categorization lead to meaningful differences in the contexts within which information can be apprehended. Examination of systemic properties, forms of interaction and functional capabilities that distinguish classification and categorization can identify the fundamental features that influence the conceptual context of an information system and contribute to its utility as a meaningful information environment.

Date

29. 8.2004 9:56:28

0.09813748 = product of:
  0.16356246 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.061725687 = product of:
      0.09258853 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
        0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046085097 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.

Date

9.12.2005 19:21:29

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

0.09489456 = product of:
  0.15815759 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 5243, 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=5243)
    0.055919025 = weight(_text_:system in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055919025 = score(doc=5243,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

By "recommending'' Furner refers to collaborative filtering where multiple user rankings of items are used to create a single new ranking for a user, or to a system itself generating rankings of items for its users. This would include document retrieval systems as a subset recommending systems in the second instance, but in the first would make document retrieval system and recommending system synonyms. Information seeking actions are classified either as evaluative (determining the worth of an item), recommending (expressing perceived worth), or informative (examining the content of an item). The task of the information retrieval system is to be to predict the particular ordering that the user would specify in a given context, given complete knowledge of the collection. Citations may be considered as the result of evaluative and recommending decisions by the author, and assigned index terms may be considered as the same sort of decisions by the indexer. The selection of relevant documents by a searcher from a list also involves evaluative and recommending decisions. This suggests that searchers should have the opportunity to bring multiple ranking techniques to bear.

0.088512115 = product of:
  0.14752018 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 2644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=2644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 2644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2644)
    0.04035608 = weight(_text_:system in 2644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04035608 = score(doc=2644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 2644, 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=2644)
    0.062313687 = product of:
      0.09347053 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2644, 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=2644)
        0.06440589 = weight(_text_:22 in 2644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06440589 = score(doc=2644,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.43256867 = fieldWeight in 2644, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2644)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In 2003, OCLC published Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 (DDC 22), in print and Web versions. The changes and updates in the new edition reflect a modern view of knowledge structures and address the general needs of Dewey users. The content of DDC 22 has been shaped by a number of social, geopolitical, and technical trends. The World Wide Web has provided a vehicle for more frequent distribution of updates to the DDC, and a medium for direct communication with Dewey users around the world. In addition to updating the system itself, other strategies are needed to accommodate the needs of the global Dewey user community. Translation of the system is one approach; another is mapping. Mapping terminology to the DDC is a strategy for supporting effective local implementation of the system while maintaining the internal cohesiveness of the DDC. This paper explores the usefulness of mapping terminology from English-language general subject headings lists produced outside the U.S.

Date

29. 8.2004 13:40:26

Object

DDC-22

0.08738839 = product of:
  0.21847096 = sum of:
    0.20296982 = weight(_text_:index in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20296982 = score(doc=3313,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        1.092441 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=3313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The g-index is discussed in terms of the average number of citations of the publications in the g-core, showing that it combines features of the h-index and the A-index in one number. For a visualization, data of 8 famous physicists are presented and analyzed. In comparison with the h-index, the g-index increases between 67% and 144%, on average by a factor of 2.

Date

4. 2.2010 20:56:29

Object

g-index
h-index

0.08627334 = product of:
  0.1437889 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=220,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 220, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=220)
    0.06342807 = weight(_text_:index in 220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06342807 = score(doc=220,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 220, 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=220)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=220,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 220, 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=220)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

When the Web was invented, it was touted as a novel nonlinear medium for the written word. No longer would we be constrained by linear presentations! Hyperlinks would allow us to jump haphazardly from page to page, chapter to chapter, idea to idea! Texts would no longer need to run from beginning to end! This is misleading. A printed book is also multidimensional and potentially nonlinear. We can open it to any page, from any other page, for any reason. We can open several books at once. In fact, what makes a book special is its combination of linear structure (the order of the words) and nonlinear physicality (the bound papers). This linear/nonlinear duality is enhanced further by the index, which maps linearly sequenced pages in a nonlinear, informationally ordered structure (architecture). In truth, the online environment is crippled by an absence of linear structure. Imagine selecting a hard cover book, tearing off the covers, ripping pages into small pieces, and throwing them in a box. That box is like a computer file system, and the paper scraps are Web documents. Only one scrap can be retrieved from the box at a time, and it must be replaced before another can be accessed. Page numbers are meaningless. Global context is destroyed. And without page numbers or context, what happens to the index?

0.07991354 = product of:
  0.13318923 = sum of:
    0.100288585 = weight(_text_:index in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100288585 = score(doc=2352,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5397815 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

Object

h-index

0.078118846 = product of:
  0.13019808 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=901)
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 901, 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=901)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=901)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Users of search engines express their needs as queries, typically consisting of a small number of terms. The resulting search engine query logs are valuable resources that can be used to predict how people interact with the search system. In this paper, we introduce two novel applications of query logs, in the context of distributed information retrieval. First, we use query log terms to guide sampling from uncooperative distributed collections. We show that while our sampling strategy is at least as efficient as current methods, it consistently performs better. Second, we propose and evaluate a pruning strategy that uses query log information to eliminate terms. Our experiments show that our proposed pruning method maintains the accuracy achieved by complete indexes, while decreasing the index size by up to 60%. While such pruning may not always be desirable in practice, it provides a useful benchmark against which other pruning strategies can be measured.

0.07705554 = product of:
  0.1284259 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
    0.06848654 = weight(_text_:system in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06848654 = score(doc=5077,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.51142365 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This paper presents some important issues that a knowledge engineer must consider when developing a conceptual graph (CG) based system, particularly in the context of a deductive data/knowledge base. These issues entail fundamental representation choices that must be made prior to the development of the system. Of course, inevitable consequences follow and delimit the scope of the system in terms of its representational and inferential capabilities. However, for industrial development, a less ambitious but realistic approach is often more suited to the kind of constraints usually imposed by the market place: feasibility, scalability, simplicity, interpretability, portability, partial knowledge, time to market, etc. This paper presents and discusses some of these issues and sets the stage for an in-depth discussion pertaining to the development of CG-based systems for industrial applications, particularly for applications where a CG system provides the conceptual level of knowledge organization functionalities required by an information system

Date

3. 9.2000 15:22:33

0.07527966 = product of:
  0.1254661 = sum of:
    0.06279058 = weight(_text_:index in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06279058 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 1936, 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=1936)
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=1936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 1936, 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=1936)
    0.03005608 = product of:
      0.09016824 = sum of:
        0.09016824 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09016824 = score(doc=1936,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.6055961 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 (DDC 22) will be issued simultaneously in print and web versions in July 2003. The new edition is the first full print update to the Dewey Decimal Classification system in seven years-it includes several significant updates and many new numbers and topics. DDC 22 also features some fundamental structural changes that have been introduced with the goals of promoting classifier efficiency and improving the DDC for use in a variety of applications in the web environment. Most importantly, the content of the new edition has been shaped by the needs and recommendations of Dewey users around the world. The worldwide user community has an important role in shaping the future of the DDC.

Object

DDC-22

0.074006006 = product of:
  0.12334334 = sum of:
    0.08386256 = weight(_text_:context in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08386256 = score(doc=2760,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.475888 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Information is often organized as a text hierarchy. A hierarchical text-classification system is thus essential for the management, sharing, and dissemination of information. It aims to automatically classify each incoming document into zero, one, or several categories in the text hierarchy. In this paper, we present a technique called CRHTC (context recognition for hierarchical text classification) that performs hierarchical text classification by recognizing the context of discussion (COD) of each category. A category's COD is governed by its ancestor categories, whose contents indicate contextual backgrounds of the category. A document may be classified into a category only if its content matches the category's COD. CRHTC does not require any trials to manually set parameters, and hence is more portable and easier to implement than other methods. It is empirically evaluated under various conditions. The results show that CRHTC achieves both better and more stable performance than several hierarchical and nonhierarchical text-classification methodologies.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:11:54

0.07377243 = product of:
  0.12295405 = sum of:
    0.045020185 = product of:
      0.13506055 = sum of:
        0.13506055 = weight(_text_:3a in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13506055 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3604703 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.045648996 = weight(_text_:context in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045648996 = score(doc=701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.25904062 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.032284863 = weight(_text_:system in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032284863 = score(doc=701,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24108742 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

By the explosion of possibilities for a ubiquitous content production, the information overload problem reaches the level of complexity which cannot be managed by traditional modelling approaches anymore. Due to their pure syntactical nature traditional information retrieval approaches did not succeed in treating content itself (i.e. its meaning, and not its representation). This leads to a very low usefulness of the results of a retrieval process for a user's task at hand. In the last ten years ontologies have been emerged from an interesting conceptualisation paradigm to a very promising (semantic) modelling technology, especially in the context of the Semantic Web. From the information retrieval point of view, ontologies enable a machine-understandable form of content description, such that the retrieval process can be driven by the meaning of the content. However, the very ambiguous nature of the retrieval process in which a user, due to the unfamiliarity with the underlying repository and/or query syntax, just approximates his information need in a query, implies a necessity to include the user in the retrieval process more actively in order to close the gap between the meaning of the content and the meaning of a user's query (i.e. his information need). This thesis lays foundation for such an ontology-based interactive retrieval process, in which the retrieval system interacts with a user in order to conceptually interpret the meaning of his query, whereas the underlying domain ontology drives the conceptualisation process. In that way the retrieval process evolves from a query evaluation process into a highly interactive cooperation between a user and the retrieval system, in which the system tries to anticipate the user's information need and to deliver the relevant content proactively. Moreover, the notion of content relevance for a user's query evolves from a content dependent artefact to the multidimensional context-dependent structure, strongly influenced by the user's preferences. This cooperation process is realized as the so-called Librarian Agent Query Refinement Process. In order to clarify the impact of an ontology on the retrieval process (regarding its complexity and quality), a set of methods and tools for different levels of content and query formalisation is developed, ranging from pure ontology-based inferencing to keyword-based querying in which semantics automatically emerges from the results. Our evaluation studies have shown that the possibilities to conceptualize a user's information need in the right manner and to interpret the retrieval results accordingly are key issues for realizing much more meaningful information retrieval systems.

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F1627&ei=tAtYUYrBNoHKtQb3l4GYBw&usg=AFQjCNHeaxKkKU3-u54LWxMNYGXaaDLCGw&sig2=8WykXWQoDKjDSdGtAakH2Q&bvm=bv.44442042,d.Yms.

0.07080564 = product of:
  0.1770141 = sum of:
    0.12429313 = weight(_text_:index in 3749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12429313 = score(doc=3749,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6689808 = fieldWeight in 3749, 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=3749)
    0.05272096 = weight(_text_:system in 3749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05272096 = score(doc=3749,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 3749, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3749)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The book index occupies a special niche in the information retrieval world. Each index is a unique, authored work. Each book is a closed system. The text presented in a book does not change; the material is stable and fixed. Book indexers provide readers with a nonlinear way to access information in a text. Even though closed-system indexing predates the development of the printing press, a book index can be thought of as hypertext.

0.06985216 = product of:
  0.11642026 = sum of:
    0.044399645 = weight(_text_:index in 97) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044399645 = score(doc=97,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.23897146 = fieldWeight in 97, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=97)
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 97) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=97,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 97, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=97)
    0.0067817504 = product of:
      0.02034525 = sum of:
        0.02034525 = weight(_text_:29 in 97) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02034525 = score(doc=97,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.13602862 = fieldWeight in 97, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=97)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Organizing and providing access to the resources an the Internet has been a problem area in spite of the availability of sophisticated search engines and other Software tools. There have been several attempts to organize the resources an the World Wide Web. Some of them have tried to use traditional library classification schemes such as the Library of Congress Classification, the Dewey Decimal Classification and others. However there is a need to assign proper subject headings to them and present them in a logical or hierarchical sequence to cater to the need for browsing. This paper attempts to describe an experimental system designed to organize and provide access to web documents using a faceted pre-coordinate indexing system based an the Deep Structure Indexing System (DSIS) derived from POPSI (Postulate based Permuted Subject Indexing) of Bhattacharyya, and the facet analysis and chain indexing system of Ranganathan. A prototype Software System has been designed to create a database of records specifying Web documents according to the Dublin Core and to input a faceted subject heading according to DSIS. Synonymous terms are added to the Standard terms in the heading using appropriate symbols. Once the data are entered along with a description and the URL of the web document, the record is stored in the System. More than one faceted subject heading can be assigned to a record depending an the content of the original document. The System stores the Surrogates and keeps the faceted subject headings separately after establishing a link. The search is carried out an index entries derived from the faceted subject heading using the chain indexing technique. If a single term is Input, the System searches for its presence in the faceted subject headings and displays the subject headings in a sorted sequence reflecting an organizing sequence. If the number of retrieved Keadings is too large (running into more than a page) the user has the option of entering another search term to be searched in combination. The System searches subject headings already retrieved and looks for those containing the second term. The retrieved faceted subject headings can be displayed and browsed. When the relevant subject heading is selected the system displays the records with their URLs. Using the URL, the original document an the web can be accessed. The prototype system developed in a Windows NT environment using ASP and a web server is under rigorous testing. The database and Index management routines need further development.
An interesting but somewhat confusing article telling how the writers described web pages with Dublin Core metadata, including a faceted classification, and built a system that lets users browse the collection through the facets. They seem to want to cover too much in a short article, and unnecessary space is given over to screen shots showing how Dublin Core metadata was entered. The screen shots of the resulting browsable system are, unfortunately, not as enlightening as one would hope, and there is no discussion of how the system was actually written or the technology behind it. Still, it could be worth reading as an example of such a system and how it is treated in journals.

Source

Knowledge organization. 29(2002) no.2, S.61-77

0.06970926 = product of:
  0.11618209 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=5774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 5774, 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=5774)
    0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04613084 = score(doc=5774,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 5774, 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=5774)
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 5774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=5774,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5774, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5774)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The DeweyBrowser allows users to search and browse collections of library resources organized by the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system. The visual interface provides access to several million records from the OCLC WorldCat database and to a collection of records derived from the abridged edition of DDC. The prototype was developed out of a desire to make the most of Dewey numbers assigned to library materials and to explore new ways of providing access to the DDC.

Date

28. 9.2008 19:16:29

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Moving beyond the presentation layer: content and context in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) System"

0.06969789 = product of:
  0.17424472 = sum of:
    0.14352132 = weight(_text_:index in 487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14352132 = score(doc=487,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.7724724 = fieldWeight in 487, 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=487)
    0.030723399 = product of:
      0.092170194 = sum of:
        0.092170194 = weight(_text_:22 in 487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092170194 = score(doc=487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=487)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.14-20

0.06969789 = product of:
  0.17424472 = sum of:
    0.14352132 = weight(_text_:index in 505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14352132 = score(doc=505,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.7724724 = fieldWeight in 505, 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=505)
    0.030723399 = product of:
      0.092170194 = sum of:
        0.092170194 = weight(_text_:22 in 505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092170194 = score(doc=505,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 505, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=505)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.33-35