Search (1208 results, page 1 of 61)

0.26586226 = product of:
  0.5317245 = sum of:
    0.46538588 = weight(_text_:judge in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.46538588 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        1.0250188 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
    0.066338606 = weight(_text_:und in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066338606 = score(doc=73,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13024996 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.50931764 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Klassifikation und Erkenntnis I. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 1 "Klassifikation und Wissensgewinnung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979

0.1678955 = product of:
  0.335791 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
    0.025533738 = weight(_text_:und in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025533738 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13024996 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.19603643 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 44(2020) H.1, S.34-53

0.11634647 = product of:
  0.46538588 = sum of:
    0.46538588 = weight(_text_:judge in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.46538588 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        1.0250188 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Public library quarterly 15(1996) no.1, S.65-66 (A.L. Judge)

0.104934685 = product of:
  0.20986937 = sum of:
    0.19391078 = weight(_text_:judge in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19391078 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
    0.015958587 = weight(_text_:und in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015958587 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13024996 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.12252277 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 44(2020) H.3, S.516-529

0.100307025 = product of:
  0.4012281 = sum of:
    0.4012281 = weight(_text_:harmony in 4045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4012281 = score(doc=4045,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.72690773 = fieldWeight in 4045, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4045)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents views on the general theme of the advent of a future that may eliminate libraries. Describes the negative effects that the Information Age may bring and presents a vision in which the Age of Cyberspace might well rescue many developed and developing countries. Full, functional literacy might be achieved worldwide by means of the new information technology. Humanity could be liberated from ignorance through developments in communications and learning via the Cyberspace. Universal participation in democracy and human civilization may be made possible and there may be a global renaissance whereby all societies and individuals will take advantage of the technological advances, while avoiding losing their own authentic cultures and learning other faits, doctrines and cultural values in a spirit of tolerance and harmony

0.100307025 = product of:
  0.4012281 = sum of:
    0.4012281 = weight(_text_:harmony in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4012281 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.72690773 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, I propose the concept of resonance as a useful one for describing what it means to experience relevance. Based on an extensive interdisciplinary review, I provide a novel framework that presents resonance as a spectrum of experience with a multitude of outcomes ranging from a sense of harmony and coherence to life transformation. I argue that resonance has different properties to the more traditional interpretation of relevance and provides a better system of explanation of what it means to experience relevance. I show how traditional approaches to relevance and resonance work in a complementary fashion and outline how resonance may present distinct new lines of research into relevance theory.

0.09426978 = product of:
  0.18853956 = sum of:
    0.016584652 = weight(_text_:und in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016584652 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13024996 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.12732941 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
    0.17195491 = weight(_text_:harmony in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17195491 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.3115319 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

BK

06.00 / Information und Dokumentation: Allgemeines

Classification

06.00 / Information und Dokumentation: Allgemeines

Content

Bei der Buchausgabe mit CD findet sich auf dieser eine elektronische Version des ASIS&T-Thesaurus, zusammen mit der Software C der Firma Data Harmony. Mit dieser unter Windows laufenden Software wurde der Thesaurus für die dritte Auflage erstellt.

Footnote

Weitere Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 58(2007) H.1, S.59-60 (J. Fassbender) mit Berücksichtigung der Software Thesaurus Master.

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=5025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 5025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5025)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Abstracts enable users to judge the relevance of articles, provide a summary and may be a substitute for the original document. Defines abstracts and considers who they are written be according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other sources. Distinguishes between indicative and informative abstracts. Informative abstracts are preferred by ANSI and ERIC. Discusses the content and procedures for abstracting, writing style, tests of quality and readability and informativeness. Presents statistics analyzing abstracts from 3 general interest databases and on abstract length and type

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 7870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=7870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 7870, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7870)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the information explosion and poses the question of whether the explosion is driving an equal and opposite information implosion. Uses 4 criteria to judge whether available information has become better or worse: cost, ease or difficulty of access; variety of sources; and clarity. Concludes that none of these have improved over the last generation

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=1153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 1153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1153)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Präsentation folgender Gestaltungsprinzipien: (1) Help the user develop an understanding of the operation of the interface and the search process; (2) Provide information to help users judge the value of continuing a search path; (3) Assist the user in refining the search query or search topic; (4) Provide verbal labels suggestive of meaning

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=3816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 3816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3816)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.071647875 = product of:
  0.2865915 = sum of:
    0.2865915 = weight(_text_:harmony in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865915 = score(doc=471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.5192198 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Metadata interoperability is a fundamental requirement for access to information within networked knowledge organization systems. The Harmony international digital library project [1] has developed a common underlying data model (the ABC model) to enable the scalable mapping of metadata descriptions across domains and media types. The ABC model [2] provides a set of basic building blocks for metadata modeling and recognizes the importance of 'events' to describe unambiguously metadata for objects with a complex history. To test and evaluate the interoperability capabilities of this model, we applied it to some real multimedia examples and analysed the results of mapping from the ABC model to various different metadata domains using XSLT [3]. This work revealed serious limitations in the ability of XSLT to support flexible dynamic semantic mapping. To overcome this, we developed MetaNet [4], a metadata term thesaurus which provides the additional semantic knowledge that is non-existent within declarative XML-encoded metadata descriptions. This paper describes MetaNet, its RDF Schema [5] representation and a hybrid mapping approach which combines the structural and syntactic mapping capabilities of XSLT with the semantic knowledge of MetaNet, to enable flexible and dynamic mapping among metadata standards.

0.071647875 = product of:
  0.2865915 = sum of:
    0.2865915 = weight(_text_:harmony in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865915 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.5192198 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article describes two approaches for searching heterogeneous resources, which are explained as they are used in two corresponding existing systems-RIRS (Resource Integration Retrieval System) and HRUSP (Heterogeneous Resource Union Search Platform). On analyzing the existing systems, a possible framework-the MUSP (Multimetadata-Based Union Search Platform) is presented. Libraries now face a dilemma. On one hand, libraries subscribe to many types of database retrieval systems that are produced by various providers. The libraries build their data and information systems independently. This results in highly heterogeneous and distributed systems at the technical level (e.g., different operating systems and user interfaces) and at the conceptual level (e.g., the same objects are named using different terms). On the other hand, end users want to access all these heterogeneous data via a union interface, without having to know the structure of each information system or the different retrieval methods used by the systems. Libraries must achieve a harmony between information providers and users. In order to bridge the gap between the service providers and the users, it would seem that all source databases would need to be rebuilt according to a uniform data structure and query language, but this seems impossible. Fortunately, however, libraries and information and technology providers are now making an effort to find a middle course that meets the requirements of both data providers and users. They are doing this through resource integration.

0.071647875 = product of:
  0.2865915 = sum of:
    0.2865915 = weight(_text_:harmony in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865915 = score(doc=1066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.5192198 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The relationship between information and control interests social scientists; however, much prior work has focused on organizations rather than families. Work on interactive information behaviors has also focused on organizations and on collaboration rather than conflict. Therefore, in families managing chronic illness, we investigated information behaviors in the context of health-related social control and the impact of control on patient health behavior. We conducted a qualitative analysis of interviews with 38 family groups and 97 individuals over 2 years. Findings revealed conflictual information behavior, which led to competitions for control and influence between family members and patients. In response to perceived patient health behavior-related problems, family members sought, shared, and used information for social control of patients by enforcing norms, leveraging expertise, performing surveillance, and structuring the environment. These behaviors clashed with patients' interests and perspectives drawn from their own information acquisition. Patients responded by assessing family-presented information and using information to resist or appease norm enforcement, refute or agree with expertise, and permit or block surveillance. Over time, some patient behaviors changed; alternatively, patients blocked family access to information about themselves, or family members retreated. The results challenge presumptions of benefit and harmony that have characterized much prior information behavior research.

0.068557814 = product of:
  0.27423126 = sum of:
    0.27423126 = weight(_text_:judge in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27423126 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.6039981 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) provides a TREC-like platform for evaluating content-oriented XML retrieval systems. Since 2007, INEX has been using a set of precision-recall based metrics for its ad hoc tasks. The authors investigate the reliability and robustness of these focused retrieval measures, and of the INEX pooling method. They explore four specific questions: How reliable are the metrics when assessments are incomplete, or when query sets are small? What is the minimum pool/query-set size that can be used to reliably evaluate systems? Can the INEX collections be used to fairly evaluate "new" systems that did not participate in the pooling process? And, for a fixed amount of assessment effort, would this effort be better spent in thoroughly judging a few queries, or in judging many queries relatively superficially? The authors' findings validate properties of precision-recall-based metrics observed in document retrieval settings. Early precision measures are found to be more error-prone and less stable under incomplete judgments and small topic-set sizes. They also find that system rankings remain largely unaffected even when assessment effort is substantially (but systematically) reduced, and confirm that the INEX collections remain usable when evaluating nonparticipating systems. Finally, they observe that for a fixed amount of effort, judging shallow pools for many queries is better than judging deep pools for a smaller set of queries. However, when judging only a random sample of a pool, it is better to completely judge fewer topics than to partially judge many topics. This result confirms the effectiveness of pooling methods.

0.06786877 = product of:
  0.27147508 = sum of:
    0.27147508 = weight(_text_:judge in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27147508 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The need for criteria by which to judge the adequacy of an abstract is felt most strongly when evaluating machine-produced abstracts. In order to develop a set of criteria, a survey was conducted of the instructions prepared by various scientific publications as a guide to their abstracters in the preparation of copy. One-hundred-and-thirty sets of instructions were analyzed and compared as to their function, content, and form. It was concluded that, while differences in subject matter do not necessarily require different kinds of abstracts, there are significant variations between the informative and the indicative abstract. A set of criteria for the writing of an acceptable abstract of science literature was derived. The adequacy of these criteria is still to be validated, and the athors' plans for fututre research in this area are specified

0.06786877 = product of:
  0.27147508 = sum of:
    0.27147508 = weight(_text_:judge in 4844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27147508 = score(doc=4844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 4844, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4844)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Replicates a previous study by Eisenberg and Hu regarding users' perceptions of the binary or dichotomous nature of their relevance judgements. The studies examined the assumptions that searchers divide documents evenly into relevant and nonrelevant. 35 staff, faculty and doctoral students at Michigan Univ., School of Education and Dept. of Psychology conducted searchers and the retrieved documents submitted to the searchers in 3 incremental versions: title only; title and abstract; title, abstract and indexing information: At each stage the subjects were asked to judge the relevance of the document to the query. The findings support the earlier study and the break points between relevance and nonrelevance was not at or near 50%

0.06786877 = product of:
  0.27147508 = sum of:
    0.27147508 = weight(_text_:judge in 7418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27147508 = score(doc=7418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 7418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7418)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers two kinds of queries that may be applied to a database. The first is a query written by a searcher to express an information need. The second is a request for documents most similar to a document already judge relevant by the searcher. Examines the effectiveness of these two procedures and shows that in important cases the latter query types is more effective than the former. This provides a new view of the cluster hypothesis and a justification for document neighbouring procedures. If all the documents in a database have readily available precomputed nearest neighbours, a new search algorithm, called parallel neighbourhood searching. Shows that this feedback-based method provides significant improvement in recall over traditional linear searching methods, and appears superior to traditional feedback methods in overall performance

0.06786877 = product of:
  0.27147508 = sum of:
    0.27147508 = weight(_text_:judge in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27147508 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 3946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3946)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the increased use of local area networks, CD-ROMs and the Internet, an enormous amount of traditional material is becoming available. Quality issues are therefore becoming even more vital. Describes a methodology being evaluated by The Centre for Information Quality (CIQM) whereby databases can be quantitatively labelled by their producers, so that users can judge how much reliance can be place on them. At the same time, each label bacomes a database specific standard to which its information provider must adhere. This may be a route to responsible information supply