Search (1991 results, page 4 of 100)

0.07284126 = product of:
  0.29136503 = sum of:
    0.29136503 = weight(_text_:headings in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29136503 = score(doc=4324,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 4324, 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=4324)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Object

Sears List of Subject Headings

0.07284126 = product of:
  0.29136503 = sum of:
    0.29136503 = weight(_text_:headings in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29136503 = score(doc=1361,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 1361, 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=1361)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07284126 = product of:
  0.29136503 = sum of:
    0.29136503 = weight(_text_:headings in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29136503 = score(doc=1360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = 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

0.07284126 = product of:
  0.29136503 = sum of:
    0.29136503 = weight(_text_:headings in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29136503 = score(doc=1498,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 1498, 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=1498)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07284126 = product of:
  0.29136503 = sum of:
    0.29136503 = weight(_text_:headings in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29136503 = score(doc=2333,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = 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.

0.07284126 = product of:
  0.29136503 = sum of:
    0.29136503 = weight(_text_:headings in 3199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29136503 = score(doc=3199,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 3199, 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=3199)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

States in brief the new features of the recently released 21st edition of the Sears List of Subject Headings. Introduces its new editor Barbara A. Bristow, and the new publisher EBSCO Information Services which recently acquired Sears' founder publisher since 1923, the H.W. Wilson Company. Names a few new subject headings in areas like science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM). In this edition there are a total of 250 new headings making it a total of 10,000 preferred headings meant for small and medium sized libraries. Critically examines inconsistencies in a few headings. States the additional features of the online edition. Concludes to say the new edition maintains its stellar reputation of a handy list of general subject headings.

Object

Sears List of Subject Headings

0.07264489 = product of:
  0.14528978 = sum of:
    0.02510784 = weight(_text_:und in 822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02510784 = score(doc=822,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1463742 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.17153187 = fieldWeight in 822, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=822)
    0.12018194 = weight(_text_:headings in 822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12018194 = score(doc=822,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 822, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=822)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Connecting and evaluating thesauri is an important task for the systematic development of better information retrieval systems. Connecting thesauri includes not only determining when terms in different thesauri are the same but also determining what kinds of relationships can be transferred from one thesaurus to another. This paper first presents issues in connecting and evaluating thesauri. Various experiments in connecting a particular thesaurus, the Medical Subject Headings, with other medical thesauri are described. In these experiments, similar terms in two thesauri are recognized and then differences in two thesauri are exploited to create more powerful thesauri. Part of the evaluation requires the thesaurus to support automatic indexing and retrieving of documents

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.07240124 = product of:
  0.14480248 = sum of:
    0.01863774 = weight(_text_:und in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01863774 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1463742 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = 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)
    0.12616475 = weight(_text_:headings in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12616475 = score(doc=166,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.39396584 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, 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

Footnote

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

LCSH

Subject headings / Information science
Subject headings / Information technology
Subject headings / Library science

Subject

Subject headings / Information science
Subject headings / Information technology
Subject headings / Library science

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 7727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=7727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 7727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7727)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reports research that used descriptor subfields in MLA Bibliography online to quantify literary warrant in the domain of scholarly work about fiction (i.e., 'fiction studies'). The research used Hulme's concept of literary warrant and Kernan's description of the interactive processes of literature and literary scholarship to justify quantifying existing subject indexing in existing bibliographic records as a first step in the domain analysis of a field. It was found that certain of the MLA Bibliography onle's descriptor subfields and certain of the descriptor terms within those subfields occured more often than would occur by chance. The techniques used in the research might be extended to domain analysis of other fields. Use of the methodology might improve the ability to evaluate existing and to design future subject access systems

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 6635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=6635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 6635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6635)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, initiated in the UK by the Follett Implementation Group on Information Technology (FIGIT), to assess whether a national retrospective catalogue conversion programme would be justified and what the implications would be of much wider access not only for the records so converted but also for the actual collections. The study aimed to acquire data on numbers of items required to be converted in the librarires of institutions of higher education and used 3 approaches to obtain the information: a questionnaire survey (to obtain actual data on numbers of records); informal talks with bibliographic records suppliers (to determine costs); and a literature survey and focused consultation exercise (to justify national funding for retrospective conversion). The study was only concerned with bibliographic items, excluded non print materials, and considered local, national and international aspects

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Models administrative and operating costs surrounding a hypermedia database and determines 7 conditions for the cost justification of hypermedia; higher linking costs proportionately reduce the total number of links implemented; increasing the benefits from using the database increases the total number of links proportionately; increasing database size results in an increase in the total number of links implemented; if the database user learns from the database slowly, then a larger number of links need to be provided: the maximum size of databases which is justified on cost will increase as the average cost of linking each node becomes smaller; the total benefit from usage required in order to cost justify a database will decrease as the average cost of linking each node becomes smaller and the maximum size of database which is cost justified will increase rapidly as the learning rate increases. The learning rate can be increased by construction of links and nodes so that they are maximally informative

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=3655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Five controlled vocabularies currently used for content representation in collections of non art moving images were examined to determine their level of conceptual compatibility. Methods borrowed from previous research in the area of indexing language compatibility were used. Quantitative data and qualitative observations allowed us to estimate more precisely and realistically the actual degree of conceptual redundancy in these indexing languages. It was found that the conceptual overlap is high enough to justify the pursuit of research and development work an a common basic indexing and access language that could be used to name objects, events, categories of persons, and relations most frequently depicted in non art moving image collections.

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 4936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=4936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 4936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4936)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Draws on recent literature form the fields of library and information science, communication studies and social sciences to discuss the issues underpinning current attempts to justify public library provision of information in a social context where information is beginning to be seen as a commodity. Discusses the conventional rationale for public library provision, defines the social impact of public libraries and places it in historical context. Considers the present urgency of current concerns with particular reference to funding. Concludes that research and demonstration programmes in this field aim to provide new evidence about the effectiveness and value of public libraries. The rationale for public libraries must take into account their continuing vital function as a promoter of citizenship and democracy

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 5394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=5394,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 5394, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5394)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - To propose a categorization of the different conflation procedures at the two basic approaches, non-linguistic and linguistic techniques, and to justify the application of normalization methods within the framework of linguistic techniques. Design/methodology/approach - Presents a range of term conflation methods, that can be used in information retrieval. The uniterm and multiterm variants can be considered equivalent units for the purposes of automatic indexing. Stemming algorithms, segmentation rules, association measures and clustering techniques are well evaluated non-linguistic methods, and experiments with these techniques show a wide variety of results. Alternatively, the lemmatisation and the use of syntactic pattern-matching, through equivalence relations represented in finite-state transducers (FST), are emerging methods for the recognition and standardization of terms. Findings - The survey attempts to point out the positive and negative effects of the linguistic approach and its potential as a term conflation method. Originality/value - Outlines the importance of FSTs for the normalization of term variants.

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Taking the discourse as our empirical object of study, we used the theoretical foundations of the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to justify the way an ontology is built to represent the area identified as a public policy, in this case, the Brazilian Electronic Government Program. Our objective is to contribute to the fields of Information Science and Computer Science, and present the possibilities for knowledge representation and organization of knowledge by Ontology construction. To support the construction of an ontology for Brazilian E-Government, as a public policy, we evaluate the proposed Controlled Vocabulary of E-Government - VCGE (2011).

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 2722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=2722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 2722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2722)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper we explored three areas: decision making and information seeking, the relationship between information seeking and uncertainty, and the role of expertise in influencing information use. This was undertaken in the context of a qualitative study into decision making in the initial stages of emergency response to major incidents. The research took an interpretive approach in which activity theory is used as an analytical framework. The research provides further evidence that the context of the activity and individual differences influence the choice of decision mode and associated information behavior. We also established that information is often not used to resolve uncertainty in decision making and indeed information is often sought and used after the decision is made to justify the decision. Finally, we point to the significance of both expertise and confidence in understanding information behavior. The contribution of the research to existing theoretical frameworks is discussed and a modified version of Wilson's problem-solving model is proposed.

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 3951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=3951,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 3951, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3951)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article attempts to clarify the nature of the relationship between the RDA and ISBD standards in order to be able to understand their differences and vinculations, as well as to remove some misinterpretations about this relationship. With this objective, some aspects that can affect their differences, such as types of standards, points of view, scope, origin, policies of the creation and development group or organization in charge that logically justify these differences, are analyzed. These have not presented any obstacles for a correct relationship with the help of the Linked Data technology. In this article, account is also given of the work done of mappings and alignments between the standards in order to contribute properly to the Semantic Web. This knowledge is the one fundamental required for current catalogers to use standards judiciously, knowledgeably and responsibly.

0.070220634 = product of:
  0.28088254 = sum of:
    0.28088254 = weight(_text_:justify in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28088254 = score(doc=530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5288051 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.5311646 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.0125885 = idf(docFreq=39, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many of the most pressing issues in information ethics-informational privacy, surveillance, intellectual property, access to information, and the distribution of information resources-can only be addressed at the level of global politics. This paper develops an approach to theorizing about political questions of concern to information ethics. It begins by situating a political philosophy of information within the broader field of ethics and defending a theoretical approach that is practical, person-centered, and pluralistic. The method of dialogic public reason, as articulated by John Rawls and supplemented with insights from Jürgen Habermas, is described and defended. It is argued that dialogic public reason provides a way to justify political principles in a diverse global context. The paper concludes by relating the idea of dialogic public reason to international human rights. The putative human right to intellectual property is criticized on the grounds that it does not pass the test of public reason.

0.06867539 = product of:
  0.27470157 = sum of:
    0.27470157 = weight(_text_:headings in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27470157 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = queryNorm
        0.8577914 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06867539 = product of:
  0.27470157 = sum of:
    0.27470157 = weight(_text_:headings in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27470157 = score(doc=453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32024285 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06599678 = 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)