Search (2379 results, page 1 of 119)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.14 
    0.1402445 = product of:
  0.17530562 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
    0.06342807 = weight(_text_:index in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06342807 = score(doc=2282,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=2282,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
    0.038578555 = product of:
      0.057867832 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
  2. Thenmalar, S.; Geetha, T.V.: Enhanced ontology-based indexing and searching (2014) 0.10 
    0.102585636 = product of:
  0.12823205 = sum of:
    0.028243875 = weight(_text_:context in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028243875 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.16027321 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
    0.07020201 = weight(_text_:index in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07020201 = score(doc=1633,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.37784708 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
    0.02306542 = weight(_text_:system in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02306542 = score(doc=1633,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17224117 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
    0.0067207436 = product of:
      0.02016223 = sum of:
        0.02016223 = weight(_text_:22 in 1633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02016223 = score(doc=1633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1633)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to improve the conceptual-based search by incorporating structural ontological information such as concepts and relations. Generally, Semantic-based information retrieval aims to identify relevant information based on the meanings of the query terms or on the context of the terms and the performance of semantic information retrieval is carried out through standard measures-precision and recall. Higher precision leads to the (meaningful) relevant documents obtained and lower recall leads to the less coverage of the concepts. Design/methodology/approach - In this paper, the authors enhance the existing ontology-based indexing proposed by Kohler et al., by incorporating sibling information to the index. The index designed by Kohler et al., contains only super and sub-concepts from the ontology. In addition, in our approach, we focus on two tasks; query expansion and ranking of the expanded queries, to improve the efficiency of the ontology-based search. The aforementioned tasks make use of ontological concepts, and relations existing between those concepts so as to obtain semantically more relevant search results for a given query. Findings - The proposed ontology-based indexing technique is investigated by analysing the coverage of concepts that are being populated in the index. Here, we introduce a new measure called index enhancement measure, to estimate the coverage of ontological concepts being indexed. We have evaluated the ontology-based search for the tourism domain with the tourism documents and tourism-specific ontology. The comparison of search results based on the use of ontology "with and without query expansion" is examined to estimate the efficiency of the proposed query expansion task. The ranking is compared with the ORank system to evaluate the performance of our ontology-based search. From these analyses, the ontology-based search results shows better recall when compared to the other concept-based search systems. The mean average precision of the ontology-based search is found to be 0.79 and the recall is found to be 0.65, the ORank system has the mean average precision of 0.62 and the recall is found to be 0.51, while the concept-based search has the mean average precision of 0.56 and the recall is found to be 0.42. Practical implications - When the concept is not present in the domain-specific ontology, the concept cannot be indexed. When the given query term is not available in the ontology then the term-based results are retrieved. Originality/value - In addition to super and sub-concepts, we incorporate the concepts present in same level (siblings) to the ontological index. The structural information from the ontology is determined for the query expansion. The ranking of the documents depends on the type of the query (single concept query, multiple concept queries and concept with relation queries) and the ontological relations that exists in the query and the documents. With this ontological structural information, the search results showed us better coverage of concepts with respect to the query.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  3. Pika, J.; Pika-Biolzi, M.: Multilingual subject access and classification-based browsing through authority control : the experience of the ETH-Bibliothek, Zürich (2015) 0.10 
    0.102270104 = product of:
  0.12783763 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2295)
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 2295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=2295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 2295, 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=2295)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 2295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=2295,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2295, 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=2295)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2295,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2295, 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=2295)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    The paper provides an illustration of the benefits of subject authority control improving multilingual subject access in NEBIS - Netzwerk von Bibliotheken und Informationsstellen in der Schweiz. This example of good practice focuses on some important aspects of classification and indexing. NEBIS subject authorities comprise a classification scheme and multilingual subject descriptor system. A bibliographic system supported by subject authority control empowers libraries as it enables them to expand and adjust vocabulary and link subjects to suit their specific audience. Most importantly it allows the management of different subject vocabularies in numerous languages. In addition, such an enriched subject index creates re-usable and shareable source of subject statements that has value in the wider context of information exchange. The illustrations and supporting arguments are based on indexing practice, subject authority control and use of classification in ETH-Bibliothek, which is the largest library within the NEBIS network.
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
  4. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.10 
    0.09589066 = product of:
  0.15981777 = sum of:
    0.10986064 = weight(_text_:index in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10986064 = score(doc=1418,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.591301 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.04035608 = weight(_text_:system in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04035608 = score(doc=1418,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  5. Gayo, J.E.L.; Farham, H.; Fernández, J.C.; Rodríguez , J.M.A.: Representing statistical indexes as linked data including metadata about their computation process (2014) 0.09 
    0.09149967 = product of:
  0.15249945 = sum of:
    0.10986064 = weight(_text_:index in 1570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10986064 = score(doc=1570,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.591301 = fieldWeight in 1570, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1570)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 1570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=1570,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 1570, 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=1570)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 1570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=1570,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1570, 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=1570)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    In this paper we describe the development of the Web Index linked data portal that represents statistical index data and the computations from which it has been obtained. The Web Index is a multi-dimensional measure of the World Wide Web's contribution to development and human rights globally. It covers 81 countries and incorporates indicators that assess several areas like universal access; freedom and openness; relevant content; and empowerment. In order to empower the Web Index transparency, we established as an internal requirement that every published data could be externally verified. The verification could be that it was just raw data obtained from a secondary source, in which case, the system must provide a link to that data source or that the value has been internally computed, in which case, the system provides links to the values from which it has been calculated. The resulting portal contains data that can be tracked to its sources so an external agent can validate the whole index computation process. We describe the different aspects involved in the development of the WebIndex data portal that also offers new linked data visualization tools. Although in this paper we concentrate on the Web Index development, this approach can be generalized to other projects which involve the publication of externally verifiable computations.
    Source
    Metadata and semantics research: 8th Research Conference, MTSR 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany, November 27-29, 2014, Proceedings. Eds.: S. Closs et al
  6. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.09 
    0.09066918 = product of:
  0.22667295 = sum of:
    0.11255046 = product of:
      0.33765137 = sum of:
        0.33765137 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33765137 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3604703 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.11412249 = weight(_text_:context in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11412249 = score(doc=1826,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.64760154 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  7. Samuelsson, J.: Knowledge organization for feminism and feminist research : a discourse oriented study of systematic outlines, logical structure, semantics and the process of indexing (2010) 0.09 
    0.09058932 = product of:
  0.1509822 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=3354,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3354, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3354)
    0.07768321 = weight(_text_:index in 3354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07768321 = score(doc=3354,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.418113 = fieldWeight in 3354, 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=3354)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 3354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=3354,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 3354, 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=3354)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The focus in this article is an analysis of the knowledge organization systems that index and classify feminist research texts in a Swedish bibliographic context. The theoretical and analytical framework is primarily discourse theoretic. At first, a feminist discourse is defined, of which feminist research is seen as a part. Feminist perspectives are analyzed through text analysis of PhD dissertations as feminist articulations. I also analyze the possibilities to classify and index feminist research with the national universal knowledge organization systems (KOS): Svenska Ämnesord (SÄ) and Klassifikationssystem för svenska bibliotek (KSB), and one subject specific system: Kvinnohistoriska samlingarnas ämnesord (KvÄ). The systems are analyzed as articulations. The KOS are studied in order to discuss how they are able to articulate feminist perspectives. In the national universal systems, a severe marginalization of feminist research is noticed. Feminist discourse consisting of feminist theoretical and metatheoretical perspectives are not considered at all in the KOS, which could not be considered as feminist articulations. The marginalization is interpreted as an objectivistic and universalistic epistemology and ontology; monodisciplinary knowledge and thematic topics are privileged. Feminism is misunderstood as a field relating to socio-political women's issues, which has marginalized status in the systems. In the subject-specific system Kvinnohistoriska samlingarnas ämnesord incomplete and inadequate knowledge organization is shown. The structure of this index is too simplistic and feminist discourse as such is not defined. Successful organization of feminist knowledge needs to be based on a particular understanding of knowledge and knowledge organization as contextually shaped (and shaping).
  8. Fassin, Y.: ¬A new qualitative rating system for scientific publications and a fame index for academics (2018) 0.08 
    0.07997429 = product of:
  0.19993573 = sum of:
    0.1538049 = weight(_text_:index in 4571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1538049 = score(doc=4571,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 4571, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4571)
    0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 4571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04613084 = score(doc=4571,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 4571, 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=4571)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    An innovative approach is proposed for a rating system for academic publications based on a categorization into ratings comparable to financial ratings such as Moody's and S&P ratings (AAA, AA, A, BA, BBB, BB, B, C). The categorization makes use of a variable percentile approach based on recently developed h-related indices. Building on this categorization, a new index is proposed for researchers, the fame-index or f2-index. This new index integrates some qualitative elements related to the influence of a researcher's articles. It better mitigates than the classic h-index.
  9. Prathap, G.: ¬The zynergy-index and the formula for the h-index (2014) 0.08 
    0.076511264 = product of:
  0.19127816 = sum of:
    0.17577702 = weight(_text_:index in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17577702 = score(doc=1207,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.94608164 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=1207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1207, 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=1207)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The h-index, as originally proposed (Hirsch, 2005), is a purely heuristic construction. Burrell (2013) showed that efforts to derive formulae from the mathematical framework of Lotkaian informetrics could lead to misleading results. On this note, we argue that a simple heuristic "thermodynamical" model can enable a better three-dimensional (3D) evaluation of the information production process leading to what we call the zynergy-index.
    Date
    29. 1.2014 16:53:38
    Object
    h-index
    zynergy-index.
  10. Panzer, M.: Dewey: how to make it work for you (2013) 0.07 
    0.07427103 = product of:
  0.12378505 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=5797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5797, 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=5797)
    0.04035608 = weight(_text_:system in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04035608 = score(doc=5797,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 5797, 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=5797)
    0.038578555 = product of:
      0.057867832 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=5797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5797, 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=5797)
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=5797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5797, 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=5797)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The article discusses various aspects of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system of classifying library books in 2013. Background is presented on some librarians' desire to stop using DDC and adopt a genre-based system of classification. It says librarians can use the DDC to deal with problems and issues related to library book classification. It highlights the benefits of using captions and relative index terms and semantic relationships in DDC.
    Content
    "As knowledge brokers, we are living in interesting times for libraries and librarians. We wonder sometimes if our traditional tools like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system can cope with the onslaught of information. The categories provided don't always seem adequate for the knowledge-discovery habits of today's patrons. They have grown accustomed to new ways for their information needs to be met, from the fire-and-forget style of a hard-to-control classic Google search to the pervasive, always-on style of Google Now, anticipating users' information needs without their having even asked a verbal question. Contrariwise, I believe that we, as librarians, could be making better use of our tools. Many (like the DDC) are a reflection of the same social and epistemological forces that brought about modernity at the turn of the last century. We as librarians are in the unique position of providing services that are as ground-breaking as these tools. As we see the need to provide unique and cutting-edge knowledge discovery to our users, I argue in this article that the DDC can play a key role in fulfilling this purpose."
    Source
    Knowledge quest. 42(2013) no.2, S.22-29
  11. Burrell, Q.L.: Formulae for the h-index : a lack of robustness in Lotkaian informetrics? (2013) 0.07 
    0.067505755 = product of:
  0.16876438 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 977, 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=977)
    0.12034631 = weight(_text_:index in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12034631 = score(doc=977,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.64773786 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In one of the first attempts at providing a mathematical framework for the Hirsch index, Egghe and Rousseau (2006) assumed the standard Lotka model for an author's citation distribution to derive a delightfully simple closed formula for his/her h-index. More recently, the same authors (Egghe & Rousseau, 2012b) have presented a new (implicit) formula based on the so-called shifted Lotka function to allow for the objection that the original model makes no allowance for papers receiving zero citations. Here it is shown, through a small empirical study, that the formulae actually give very similar results whether or not the uncited papers are included. However, and more important, it is found that they both seriously underestimate the true h-index, and we suggest that the reason for this is that this is a context-the citation distribution of an author-in which straightforward Lotkaian informetrics is inappropriate. Indeed, the analysis suggests that even if we restrict attention to the upper tail of the citation distribution, a simple Lotka/Pareto-like model can give misleading results.
    Object
    h-index
  12. Buckland, M.K.: Classifications, links and contexts : keynote address (2015) 0.07 
    0.06695993 = product of:
  0.11159988 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=2287,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 2287, 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=2287)
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=2287,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = 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)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2287, 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=2287)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Links commonly refer to models developed for the World Wide Web Consortium, but these are a special case within the wider field of links and references used in resource discovery, including subject indexes to classifications, relationships used in vocabulary control, and search term recommender services. There is a tension between standardised relationships (symbolized by Paul Otlet's modernist universalism and the Semantic Web) and the particular, subjective situations in which individuals try to make sense (symbolized by Ludwik Fleck's emphasis on the influence of local cultural contexts). A subject index to a classification is a collection of links, sometimes qualified by context. Different domains (specialties) have their own cultural contexts and benefit from differently tailored links even when searching within the same resources. Making links is a descriptive, language activity. Probabilistic methods can create links from familiar to unfamiliar vocabularies economically. Links commonly use a limited set of relationships, mainly equivalence, inclusion, and inheritance. A far wider range of relationships would help resource discovery. Extending resource discovery requires not only same-facet links to reach additional resources but also links across different facets to provide explanatory context.
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
  13. Ackerman, B.; Wang, C.; Chen, Y.: ¬A session-specific opportunity cost model for rank-oriented recommendation (2018) 0.06 
    0.06483532 = product of:
  0.10805886 = sum of:
    0.068473496 = weight(_text_:context in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068473496 = score(doc=4468,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.38856095 = fieldWeight in 4468, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4468)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=4468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4468, 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=4468)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 4468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=4468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4468, 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=4468)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Recommender systems are changing the way that people find information, products, and even other people. This paper studies the problem of leveraging the context of the items presented to the user in a user/system interaction session to improve the recommender system's ranking prediction. We propose a novel model that incorporates the opportunity cost of giving up the other items in the session and computes session-specific relevance values for items for context-aware recommendation. The model can work on a variety of different problems settings with emphasis on implicit user feedback as it supports varying levels of ordinal relevance. Experimental evaluation demonstrates the advantages of our new model with respect to the ranking quality.
    Date
    29. 9.2018 13:20:34
  14. Agenjo, X.; Hernández, F.; Viedma, A.: Data aggregation and dissemination of authority records through Linked Open Data in a European context (2012) 0.06 
    0.061602414 = product of:
  0.102670684 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 1931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=1931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 1931, 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=1931)
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 1931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=1931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 1931, 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=1931)
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 1931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=1931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1931, 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=1931)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Throughout the analysis of the Polymath Virtual Library, data aggregation and dissemination of authority records through Linked Open Data are described. The aim of this virtual library is to reunite data, digital texts, and Web resources about Spanish, Hispano-American, Brazilian, and Portuguese polymaths from all times. Authors are the backbone of the system. For each author a MARC 21/Resource Description and Access (RDA) authority record has been created and enriched with biographical data. Specific attributes are categorized to enhance relationships and navigability of the site (profession, occupation, gender, memberships, birth and death dates and places, and languages) and visibility through Europeana and Linked Open Data.
    Date
    29. 5.2015 10:58:11
  15. Sappelli, M.; Verberne, S.; Kraaij, W.: Evaluation of context-aware recommendation systems for information re-finding (2017) 0.06 
    0.057737906 = product of:
  0.14434476 = sum of:
    0.121045165 = weight(_text_:context in 3528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121045165 = score(doc=3528,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6868851 = fieldWeight in 3528, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3528)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 3528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=3528,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3528, 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=3528)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In this article we evaluate context-aware recommendation systems for information re-finding by knowledge workers. We identify 4 criteria that are relevant for evaluating the quality of knowledge worker support: context relevance, document relevance, prediction of user action, and diversity of the suggestions. We compare 3 different context-aware recommendation methods for information re-finding in a writing support task. The first method uses contextual prefiltering and content-based recommendation (CBR), the second uses the just-in-time information retrieval paradigm (JITIR), and the third is a novel network-based recommendation system where context is part of the recommendation model (CIA). We found that each method has its own strengths: CBR is strong at context relevance, JITIR captures document relevance well, and CIA achieves the best result at predicting user action. Weaknesses include that CBR depends on a manual source to determine the context and in JITIR the context query can fail when the textual content is not sufficient. We conclude that to truly support a knowledge worker, all 4 evaluation criteria are important. In light of that conclusion, we argue that the network-based approach the CIA offers has the highest robustness and flexibility for context-aware information recommendation.
  16. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.06 
    0.05766092 = product of:
  0.1441523 = sum of:
    0.13455124 = weight(_text_:index in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13455124 = score(doc=4147,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.72419286 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
    Date
    8. 1.2011 19:22:13
    Object
    h-index
  17. Egghe, L.: Influence of adding or deleting items and sources on the h-index (2010) 0.06 
    0.057383448 = product of:
  0.14345862 = sum of:
    0.13183276 = weight(_text_:index in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13183276 = score(doc=3336,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.7095612 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=3336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3336, 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=3336)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Adding or deleting items such as self-citations has an influence on the h-index of an author. This influence will be proved mathematically in this article. We hereby prove the experimental finding in E. Gianoli and M.A. Molina-Montenegro ([2009]) that the influence of adding or deleting self-citations on the h-index is greater for low values of the h-index. Why this is logical also is shown by a simple theoretical example. Adding or deleting sources such as adding or deleting minor contributions of an author also has an influence on the h-index of this author; this influence is modeled in this article. This model explains some practical examples found in X. Hu, R. Rousseau, and J. Chen (in press).
    Date
    31. 5.2010 15:02:29
    Object
    h-index
  18. Francu, V.; Dediu, L.-I.: TinREAD - an integrative solution for subject authority control (2015) 0.06 
    0.056936827 = product of:
  0.09489471 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 2297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=2297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 2297, 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=2297)
    0.04035608 = weight(_text_:system in 2297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04035608 = score(doc=2297,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 2297, 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=2297)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2297, 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=2297)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The paper introduces TinREAD (The Information Navigator for Readers), an integrated library system produced by IME Romania. The main feature of interest is the way TinREAD can handle a classification-based thesaurus in which verbal index terms are mapped to classification notations. It supports subject authority control interlinking the authority files (subject headings and UDC system). Authority files are used for indexing consistency. Although it is said that intellectual indexing is, unlike automated indexing, both subjective and inconsistent, TinREAD is using intellectual indexing as input (the UDC notations assigned to documents) for the automated indexing resulting from the implementation of a thesaurus structure based on UDC. Each UDC notation is represented by a UNIMARC subject heading record as authority data. One classification notation can be used to search simultaneously into more than one corresponding thesaurus. This way natural language terms are used in indexing and, at the same time, the link with the corresponding classification notation is kept. Additionally, the system can also manage multilingual data for the authority files. This, together with other characteristics of TinREAD are largely discussed and illustrated in the paper. Problems encountered and possible solutions to tackle them are shown.
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
  19. Fiala, D.: Current index : a proposal for a dynamic rating system for researchers (2014) 0.06 
    0.056550372 = product of:
  0.14137593 = sum of:
    0.10875649 = weight(_text_:index in 1245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10875649 = score(doc=1245,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 1245, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1245)
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 1245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=1245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 1245, 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=1245)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    An index is proposed that is based on the h-index and a 3-year publication/citation window. When updated regularly, it shows the current scientific performance of researchers rather than their lifetime achievement as indicated by common scientometric indicators. In this respect, the new rating scheme resembles established sports ratings such as in chess or tennis. By the example of ACM SIGMOD E.F. Codd Innovations Award winners and Priestley Medal recipients, we illustrate how the new rating can be represented by a single number and visualized.
  20. Kim, T.C.-w.K.; Zumstein, P.: Semiautomatische Katalogisierung und Normdatenverknüpfung mit Zotero im Index Theologicus (2016) 0.06 
    0.05591771 = product of:
  0.13979428 = sum of:
    0.12429313 = weight(_text_:index in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12429313 = score(doc=3064,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6689808 = fieldWeight in 3064, 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=3064)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 3064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=3064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3064, 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=3064)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Im Folgenden soll aufgezeigt werden, wie derzeit das Literaturverwaltungsprogramm Zotero innerhalb des Index Theologicus genutzt wird, um unselbstständige Literatur in einem bibliothekarischen Katalogisierungssystem zu erfassen. Die modulare und flexible Architektur der Open Source Software erlaubt es, die bereits kollaborativ zusammengetragene Programmierarbeit zur Datenextraktion mitzunutzen. Das vorgestellte semiautomatische Verfahren bringt auch bei der Verknüpfung von Normdaten erhebliche Vorteile für die Medienbearbeitung.
    Object
    Index Theologicus
    Source
    LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.29, 2016 [urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-100238157]

Authors

Languages

  • e 1940
  • d 416
  • f 2
  • i 2
  • a 1
  • es 1
  • hu 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 2099
  • el 216
  • m 159
  • s 56
  • x 39
  • r 14
  • b 6
  • i 2
  • p 1
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications