Search (1210 results, page 1 of 61)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Judge, A.J.N.: Representation of sets : the role of number (1979) 0.27 
    0.26668322 = product of:
  0.53336644 = sum of:
    0.466823 = weight(_text_:judge in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.466823 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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)
    0.06654346 = weight(_text_:und in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06654346 = score(doc=73,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065217 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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
  2. Rügenhagen, M.; Beck, T.S.; Sartorius, E.J.: Information integrity in the era of Fake News : an experiment using library guidelines to judge information integrity (2020) 0.17 
    0.16841397 = product of:
  0.33682793 = sum of:
    0.31121534 = weight(_text_:judge in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31121534 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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)
    0.025612585 = weight(_text_:und in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025612585 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065217 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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
  3. Herman, D.: But does it work? : evaluating the Brandeis reference model (1994) 0.14 
    0.13942236 = product of:
  0.5576894 = sum of:
    0.5576894 = weight(_text_:herman in 276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.5576894 = score(doc=276,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.5480556 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = queryNorm
        1.0175782 = fieldWeight in 276, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=276)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Brandeis model of reference service delivery, which consists of a student-staffed information desk and a professional reseaarch consultation service, attemps to preserve the quality of the reference encounter at a time of dramatically increased demand. In this article, Herman describes a multifaceted evaluation of the model, which has neen in place since 1990. A retreat was held to redefine the model's ideals, an unabstrusive studa was performed to measure the effectiveness of the information desk, and a focus group project was used to gauge patron response. The overall conclusion of the study is that the model provides a high-quality service that has been enthusiastically received, but that improvements need to be made in the referral of patrons from the information desk to the librarian
  4. Fountain, J.F.: Headings for children's materials : an LCSH/Sears companion (1993) 0.12 
    0.11670575 = product of:
  0.466823 = sum of:
    0.466823 = weight(_text_:judge in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.466823 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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)
  5. Auer, S.; Oelen, A.; Haris, A.M.; Stocker, M.; D'Souza, J.; Farfar, K.E.; Vogt, L.; Prinz, M.; Wiens, V.; Jaradeh, M.Y.: Improving access to scientific literature with knowledge graphs : an experiment using library guidelines to judge information integrity (2020) 0.11 
    0.105258726 = product of:
  0.21051745 = sum of:
    0.19450958 = weight(_text_:judge in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19450958 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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)
    0.016007867 = weight(_text_:und in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016007867 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065217 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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
  6. Basden, A.; Burke, M.E.: Towards a philosophical understanding of documentation : a Dooyeweerdian framework (2004) 0.10 
    0.09858649 = product of:
  0.39434597 = sum of:
    0.39434597 = weight(_text_:herman in 5428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.39434597 = score(doc=5428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5480556 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = queryNorm
        0.7195364 = fieldWeight in 5428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5428)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Documents as we encounter them in everyday life are complex and diverse things, whether on paper, computer disk or on the World Wide Web. They play many roles vis-à-vis human beings, and the humans engaged with them have diverse responsibilities that are not always easy to fulfil. Added to this is the issue of how a document or literary work can change and yet retain its identity, as found in maintenance, drafting and versioning of documents. This paper explores how the meaning-oriented philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd may be used to understand the complex nature of documents, to throw light on the roles, responsibilities and culture surrounding them, and to tackle issues of identity and change.
  7. Tenopir, C.; Levine, K.; Allard, S.; Christian, L.; Volentine, R.; Boehm, R.; Nichols, F.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Herman, E.; Watkinson, A.: Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age : results of an international questionnaire (2016) 0.08 
    0.08450271 = product of:
  0.33801085 = sum of:
    0.33801085 = weight(_text_:herman in 4113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.33801085 = score(doc=4113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5480556 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = queryNorm
        0.61674553 = fieldWeight in 4113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4113)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  8. Tenopir, C.; Jascó, P.: Quality of abstracts (1993) 0.08 
    0.077803835 = product of:
  0.31121534 = sum of:
    0.31121534 = weight(_text_:judge in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31121534 = score(doc=5025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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
  9. Tenner, R.: ¬An implosion of knowledge? : the quality of information is not keeping up with the quntity (1993) 0.08 
    0.077803835 = product of:
  0.31121534 = sum of:
    0.31121534 = weight(_text_:judge in 7870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31121534 = score(doc=7870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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
  10. Judge, A.J.N.: Envisaging the art of navigating conceptual complexity : in search of software combining artistic and conceptual insights (1995) 0.08 
    0.077803835 = product of:
  0.31121534 = sum of:
    0.31121534 = weight(_text_:judge in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31121534 = score(doc=1153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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)
  11. Denning, R.; Shuttleworth, M.; Smith, P.: Interface design concepts in the development of a Web-based information retrieval system (1998) 0.08 
    0.077803835 = product of:
  0.31121534 = sum of:
    0.31121534 = weight(_text_:judge in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31121534 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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
  12. Judge, A.J.N.: Strategic correspondences : computer-aided insight scaffolding (1996) 0.08 
    0.077803835 = product of:
  0.31121534 = sum of:
    0.31121534 = weight(_text_:judge in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31121534 = score(doc=3816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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)
  13. Campbell, G.: Queer theory and the creation of contextual subject access tools for gay and lesbian communities (2000) 0.07 
    0.07041893 = product of:
  0.28167573 = sum of:
    0.28167573 = weight(_text_:herman in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28167573 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5480556 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = queryNorm
        0.51395464 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization research has come to question the theoretical distinction between "aboutness" (a document's innate content) and "meaning" (the use to which a document is put). This distinction has relevance beyond Information Studies, particularly in relation to homosexual concerns. Literary criticism, in particular, frequently addresses the question: when is a work "about" homosexuality? This paper explores this literary debate and its implications for the design of subject access systems for gay and lesbian communities. By examining the literary criticism of Herman Melville's Billy Budd, particularly in relation to the theories of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in The Epistemology of the Closet (1990), this paper exposes three tensions that designers of gay and lesbian classifications and vocabularies can expect to face. First is a tension between essentialist and constructivist views of homosexuality, which will affect the choice of terms, categories, and references. Second is a tension between minoritizing and universalizing perspectives on homosexuality. Third is a redefined distinction between aboutness and meaning, in which aboutness refers not to stable document content, but to the system designer's inescapable social and ideological perspectives. Designers of subject access systems can therefore expect to work in a context of intense scrutiny and persistent controversy
  14. Herman, E.: Research in progress. Part 2 - some preliminary insights into the information needs of the contemporary academic researcher (2004) 0.07 
    0.07041893 = product of:
  0.28167573 = sum of:
    0.28167573 = weight(_text_:herman in 5887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28167573 = score(doc=5887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5480556 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = queryNorm
        0.51395464 = fieldWeight in 5887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5887)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  15. Herman, E.: Research in progress: some preliminary and key insights into the information needs of the contemporary academic researcher. Part 1 (2004) 0.07 
    0.07041893 = product of:
  0.28167573 = sum of:
    0.28167573 = weight(_text_:herman in 801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28167573 = score(doc=801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5480556 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = queryNorm
        0.51395464 = fieldWeight in 801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=801)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  16. Herman, E.: End-users in academia : meeting the information needs of university researchers in an electronic age: Part 2 Innovative information-accessing opportunities and the researcher: user acceptance of IT-based information resources in academia (2001) 0.07 
    0.07041893 = product of:
  0.28167573 = sum of:
    0.28167573 = weight(_text_:herman in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28167573 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5480556 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = queryNorm
        0.51395464 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  17. Herman, E.: End-users in academia : meeting the information needs of university researchers in an electronic age (2001) 0.07 
    0.07041893 = product of:
  0.28167573 = sum of:
    0.28167573 = weight(_text_:herman in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28167573 = score(doc=825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5480556 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = queryNorm
        0.51395464 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.303573 = idf(docFreq=10, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  18. Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011) 0.07 
    0.06876952 = product of:
  0.2750781 = sum of:
    0.2750781 = weight(_text_:judge in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2750781 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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.
  19. Borko, H.; Chatman, S.: Criteria for acceptable abstracts : a survey of abstractors' instructions (1963) 0.07 
    0.068078354 = product of:
  0.27231342 = sum of:
    0.27231342 = weight(_text_:judge in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27231342 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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
  20. Janes, J.W.: ¬The binary nature of continous relevance judgements : a study of users' perceptions (1991) 0.07 
    0.068078354 = product of:
  0.27231342 = sum of:
    0.27231342 = weight(_text_:judge in 4844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27231342 = score(doc=4844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45542872 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05890808 = 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%

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 32
  • m 3
  • nl 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 785
  • m 300
  • el 98
  • s 91
  • i 21
  • n 17
  • x 12
  • r 11
  • b 7
  • ? 1
  • p 1
  • v 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications