Search (4782 results, page 2 of 240)

0.08383558 = product of:
  0.16767116 = sum of:
    0.028975615 = weight(_text_:und in 6245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028975615 = score(doc=6245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.19603643 = fieldWeight in 6245, 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=6245)
    0.13869554 = weight(_text_:headings in 6245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13869554 = score(doc=6245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 6245, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6245)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Describes a consultancy project for the development of a health care thesaurus involving the movement of text between different application programs. The thesaurus was built from existing text within the organisation originating from 3 sources: natural language registry file headings; descriptions from an internal business directory and a controlled vocabulary. The software used was WordPerfect and Cardbox

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.08383558 = product of:
  0.16767116 = sum of:
    0.028975615 = weight(_text_:und in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028975615 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.19603643 = fieldWeight in 4749, 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=4749)
    0.13869554 = weight(_text_:headings in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13869554 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Field

Lebensmittel und Ernährung

0.07753317 = product of:
  0.31013268 = sum of:
    0.31013268 = weight(_text_:headings in 4014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31013268 = score(doc=4014,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.95904005 = fieldWeight in 4014, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4014)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the Hebrew subject headings developed by the staff of the Hebrew Cataloguing Department, Bar-Ilan Univ. Library, Israel. The history of the development of the subject headings is followed by a discussion of how the library began assigning subject headings. Discusses the problems of translating and adapting LCSH and creating new subject headings in Hebrew

0.07701729 = product of:
  0.30806917 = sum of:
    0.30806917 = weight(_text_:judge in 4844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30806917 = score(doc=4844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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%

0.07701729 = product of:
  0.30806917 = sum of:
    0.30806917 = weight(_text_:judge in 7418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30806917 = score(doc=7418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.07701729 = product of:
  0.30806917 = sum of:
    0.30806917 = weight(_text_:judge in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30806917 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.07701729 = product of:
  0.30806917 = sum of:
    0.30806917 = weight(_text_:judge in 4295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30806917 = score(doc=4295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 4295, 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=4295)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on one area of research in an Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) MODELS (MOving to Distributed Environments for Library Services) supporting study in 3 investigative areas: examination of current database producers' guidelines for their abstract writers; a brief survey of abstracts in some traditional online databases; and a detailed survey of abstracts from 3 types of electronic database (print sourced online databases, Internet subject trees or directories, and Internet gateways). Examination of database producers' guidelines, reported here, gave a clear view of the intentions behind professionally produced traditional (printed index based) database abstracts and provided a benchmark against which to judge the conclusions of the larger investigations into abstract style, readability and content

0.07507116 = product of:
  0.30028465 = sum of:
    0.30028465 = weight(_text_:headings in 6114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30028465 = score(doc=6114,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.9285865 = fieldWeight in 6114, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6114)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The DIMDI undertook a translation of NLM's MeSH, the machine-readable version is available from DIMDI. The thesaurus contains 18.000 subject headings in medicine and related fields. It is arranged: 1) alphabetically and 2) hierarchically. Both arrangements have a main list with the main subject headings only in German and two lists with German-English and English-German subject headings

0.07507116 = product of:
  0.30028465 = sum of:
    0.30028465 = weight(_text_:headings in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30028465 = score(doc=377,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.9285865 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Issue

Vol.1: List of headings. Vol.2: Keyword index.

0.07507116 = product of:
  0.30028465 = sum of:
    0.30028465 = weight(_text_:headings in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30028465 = score(doc=586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.9285865 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Two proposals are presented which affect the Library of Congress's subject headings for art: abandonment of the structure used in headings like "Art, French" and assignment of genre headings for some types of reproductions of an artist's work.

0.07431666 = product of:
  0.29726663 = sum of:
    0.29726663 = weight(_text_:headings in 2446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29726663 = score(doc=2446,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.91925365 = fieldWeight in 2446, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2446)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A recent survey at the Royal Library in the Netherlands showed that subject headings are more efficient than title keywords for retrieval purposes. 475 Dutch publications were selected at random and assigned subject headings. The study showed that subject headings provided additional useful information in 56% of titles. Subsequent searching of the library's online catalogue showed that 88% of titles were retrieved via subject headings against 57% through title keywords. Further precision may be achieved with the help of indexing staff, but at considerable cost

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: A good title has no need of subject headings, or does it?: a comparative study of title keywords against subject headings

0.07431666 = product of:
  0.29726663 = sum of:
    0.29726663 = weight(_text_:headings in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29726663 = score(doc=2799,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.91925365 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Technical Services Committee of the Women's Studies Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, investigated the assignment of subject headings (LCSH) to core works in women's studies. Annotations for the works were compared with subject headings on OCLC cataloguing copy, mainly created by the Library of Congress. Identifies inadequates and traces them to 3 sources: inadequacies in terminology (sexist langugae, limited and biased concepts and imprecise headings); complexities of assigning headings in interdisciplinary and / or emerging fields; and standard cataloguing practices. Lists sample concepts and existing established LCSH missing lacking in bibliographical records and sample concepts lacking adequate established subject headings. Presents recommendations for remedying these problems

0.07431666 = product of:
  0.29726663 = sum of:
    0.29726663 = weight(_text_:headings in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29726663 = score(doc=633,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.91925365 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Analyses the hierarchical structure of subject headings in the cluster of the social sciences in the 12th ed. of the LCSH. Recommends some headings presently in the cluster for elimination, and suggests some not related at present. Headings pertinent to social processes, social organisation, and culture are grouped in 3 social clusters: action theory, culture, and social structure. Makes suggestions for establishing new subject headings. The intention of these changes is to create the cluster of headings corresponding to the social theory of present day and reflecting interrelationships among social phenomena and levels of generalisation

0.07355442 = product of:
  0.29421768 = sum of:
    0.29421768 = weight(_text_:headings in 1231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29421768 = score(doc=1231,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 1231, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1231)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes a study to investigate end user understanding of subdivided subject headings in their current form and in the form proposed by the first recommendation of the Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference. The impetus for this study was a charge by the Subject Analysis Committee of the ALA to respond to the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference that proposed standardizing the order of subject subdivisions. Questionnaires bearing subdivided subject headings in the 'current' form and in the form proposed were distributed to users and professional cataloguers who were asked for the meaning of individual headings. The end users' responses to cataloguers' responses were compared to determine end users' level of understanding of subdivided subject headings. An analysis of end user interpretations demonstrated that they interpreted the meaning of subject headings in the same manner as cataloguers about 40% of the time for 'current' forms of subject headings and about 32% of the time for 'proposed' forms of subject headings. Concludes with specific recommendations about the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference and general recommendations about increasing end user understanding of subdivided subject headinbgs

0.07355442 = product of:
  0.29421768 = sum of:
    0.29421768 = weight(_text_:headings in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29421768 = score(doc=1360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority control of Chinese, Japanese and Korean name headings in the Library of Congress. Complains about the lack of vernacular script

0.07355442 = product of:
  0.29421768 = sum of:
    0.29421768 = weight(_text_:headings in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29421768 = score(doc=2333,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

n this article, we report on the first large-scale study of end-user understanding of subject headings. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which children and adults understood subdivided subject headings and to suggest improvements for improving understanding of subject headings. The 1991 Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging, which served as the impetus for the study. We demonstrated that adults understood subject headings better than children; however, both adults and children assigned correct meanings to less than half of the subject headings they examined. Neither subject heading context nor subdivision order had an effect on understanding. Based on our findings, we challenge the library community to make major changes to the Library of Congress Subject Headings system that have the potential to increase end-user understanding of subject headings.

0.06934777 = product of:
  0.27739108 = sum of:
    0.27739108 = weight(_text_:headings in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27739108 = score(doc=453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.8577914 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06934777 = product of:
  0.27739108 = sum of:
    0.27739108 = weight(_text_:headings in 1107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27739108 = score(doc=1107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.8577914 = fieldWeight in 1107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1107)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06934777 = product of:
  0.27739108 = sum of:
    0.27739108 = weight(_text_:headings in 1297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27739108 = score(doc=1297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.8577914 = fieldWeight in 1297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1297)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06934777 = product of:
  0.27739108 = sum of:
    0.27739108 = weight(_text_:headings in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27739108 = score(doc=2208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.8577914 = fieldWeight in 2208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2208)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)