Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03296079 = product of:
  0.13184316 = sum of:
    0.13184316 = weight(_text_:jasist in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13184316 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3936289 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0631127 = idf(docFreq=280, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.33494282 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0631127 = idf(docFreq=280, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Vgl. das Erratum in JASIST 69(2018) no.7, S.956.

0.015779562 = product of:
  0.06311825 = sum of:
    0.06311825 = weight(_text_:und in 3526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06311825 = score(doc=3526,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14399026 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.4383508 = fieldWeight in 3526, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3526)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Für eine fiktive Dokumentmenge wird eine Dokument-Wort-Matrix erstellt und mittels zweier Suchanfragen, ebenfalls als Matrix dargestellt, die Retrievalergebnisse ermittelt. Den Wörtern der Dokumentmenge werden in einem zweiten Schritt Aspekte zugeordnet und die Untersuchung erneut durchgeführt. Ein Vergleich bestätigt die schon früher gefundenen Vorteile des aspektischen Indexierung gegenüber anderen Methoden der Retrievalverbesserung, wie Trunkierung und Controlled Terms

Source

nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.8, S.459-462

0.013807117 = product of:
  0.055228468 = sum of:
    0.055228468 = weight(_text_:und in 5103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055228468 = score(doc=5103,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14399026 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.38355696 = fieldWeight in 5103, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5103)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Auf der Grundlage von vier Originaldokumenten, d.h. dokumentarischen Bezugseinheiten (DBEs), wird die Indexierung in vier biomedizinischen Online-Datenbanken (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS PREVIEWS, SCISEARCH) analysiert. Anhand von Beispielen werden inahltliche Erschließung, Indexierungstiefe, Indexierungsbreite, Indexierungskonsistenz, Präzision (durch syntaktisches Indexieren, Gewichtung, Proximity Operatoren) und Wiederauffindbarkeit (Recall) der in den Datenbanken gespeicherten Dokumentationseinheien (DBEs) untersucht. Die zeitaufwendigere intellektuelle Indexierung bei MEDLINE und EMBASE erweist sich als wesentlich präziser als die schneller verfügbare maschinelle Zuteilung von Deskriptoren in BIOSIS PREVIEWS und SCISEARCH. In Teil 1 der Untersuchung werden die Indexierungen in MEDLINE und EMBASE, in Teil 2 die Deskriptorenzuteilungen in BIOSIS PREVIEWS und SCISEARCH verglichen

0.013184317 = product of:
  0.05273727 = sum of:
    0.05273727 = weight(_text_:jasist in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05273727 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3936289 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0631127 = idf(docFreq=280, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.13397713 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0631127 = idf(docFreq=280, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.

0.010803527 = product of:
  0.04321411 = sum of:
    0.04321411 = weight(_text_:und in 3209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04321411 = score(doc=3209,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14399026 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.30011827 = fieldWeight in 3209, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3209)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In der globalen Online-Umgebung stellen viele bibliographische Dienstleistungen integrierten Zugang zu unterschiedlichen internetbasierten OPACs zur Verfügung. In solch einer Umgebung erwarten Benutzer mehr Übereinstimmungen innerhalb und zwischen den Systemen zu sehen. Zweck dieser Studie ist, die Indexierungskonsistenz zwischen Systemen zu untersuchen. Währenddessen werden einige Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen können, untersucht. Wichtigstes Ziel dieser Studie ist, die Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen herauszufinden, damit sinnvolle Vorschläge gemacht werden können, um die Indexierungskonsistenz zu verbessern. Eine Auswahl von 3307 Monographien wurde aus zwei chinesischen bibliographischen Katalogen gewählt. Nach Hooper's Formel war die durchschnittliche Indexierungskonsistenz für Indexterme 64,2% und für Klassennummern 61,6%. Nach Rolling's Formel war sie für Indexterme 70,7% und für Klassennummern 63,4%. Mehrere Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen, wurden untersucht: (1) Indexierungsbereite; (2) Indexierungsspezifizität; (3) Länge der Monographien; (4) Kategorie der Indexierungssprache; (5) Sachgebiet der Monographien; (6) Entwicklung von Disziplinen; (7) Struktur des Thesaurus oder der Klassifikation; (8) Erscheinungsjahr. Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen wurden ebenfalls analysiert. Die Analyse ergab: (1) den Indexieren mangelt es an Fachwissen, Vertrautheit mit den Indexierungssprachen und den Indexierungsregeln, so dass viele Inkonsistenzen verursacht wurden; (2) der Mangel an vereinheitlichten oder präzisen Regeln brachte ebenfalls Inkonsistenzen hervor; (3) verzögerte Überarbeitungen der Indexierungssprachen, Mangel an terminologischer Kontrolle, zu wenige Erläuterungen und "siehe auch" Referenzen, sowie die hohe semantische Freiheit bei der Auswahl von Deskriptoren oder Klassen, verursachten Inkonsistenzen.

Imprint

Berlin : Humboldt-Universität / Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

0.008821043 = product of:
  0.035284173 = sum of:
    0.035284173 = weight(_text_:und in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035284173 = score(doc=2274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14399026 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.24504554 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Ergebnisse: (1) Wenn SW frei gewählt, Recherche um so schwieriger, je mehr SW; (2) 'ältere' SW häufiger und weniger genau verwendet als 'jüngere'; (3) viele Wörter mit ungenauer Bedeutung

0.007056834 = product of:
  0.028227337 = sum of:
    0.028227337 = weight(_text_:und in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028227337 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14399026 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.19603643 = fieldWeight in 2275, 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=2275)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Die Studie enthält Konsistenzzahlen bezogen auf die LCSH. Diese Zahlen sind kategorienbezogen und können teilweise auf die RSWK übertragen werden

0.0052926256 = product of:
  0.021170503 = sum of:
    0.021170503 = weight(_text_:und in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021170503 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14399026 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0052926256 = product of:
  0.021170503 = sum of:
    0.021170503 = weight(_text_:und in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021170503 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14399026 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 4284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4284)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0052926256 = product of:
  0.021170503 = sum of:
    0.021170503 = weight(_text_:und in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021170503 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14399026 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.064921916 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus