Search (1905 results, page 1 of 96)

0.091894194 = product of:
  0.18378839 = sum of:
    0.052820764 = weight(_text_:und in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052820764 = score(doc=1652,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14370327 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.36756828 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
    0.13096763 = weight(_text_:heading in 1652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13096763 = score(doc=1652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 1652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1652)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die Welt der Information ist zunehmend vernetzt. Quellen aller Art werden in digitaler Form über das Internet verbreitet. Die inhaltliche Erschließung dieser Quellen durch Schlagwörter bietet dem Nutzer, insbesondere dem Wissenschaftler, einen unentbehrlichen thematischen Zugang zu diesen Quellen. Die "Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog" (RSWK) sind das maßgebende Regelwerk für die verbale Inhaltserschließung im deutschsprachigen Raum. Sie sind zugleich in der bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlichen Fachwelt kontrovers diskutiert worden. Dennoch fehlt bislang eine wissenschaftliche monographische Darstellung der RSWK. Die Arbeit will einen Beitrag dazu leisten, indem sie die durch dieses Regelwerk bestimmte Indexierungssprache als Zeichensystem in seiner semantischen, syntaktischen und pragmatischen Dimension analysiert. Die theoretische Grundlage der Arbeit bietet die Semiotik von Charles Morris. Ausgehend davon wird der Typus der Indexierungssprache unter zeichentheoretischen Gesichtspunkten dargestellt. Für die konkrete Analyse der RSWK als Schlagwortsprache werden dann zwei auf der internationalen Ebene der bibliothekarischen Wissensorganisation vorgelegte Unternehmungen als Analyseinstrumente herangezogen, nämlich einmal die "Functional requirements for bibliographic records" (FRBR und zum anderen die "Principles underlying subject heading languages" Gestützt auf die Ergebnisse dieser Untersuchungen wird die RSWK als Schlagwortsprache im Hinblick auf ihre theoretische Angemessenheit und Konsistenz untersucht. Die Analyse kennzeichnet die RSWK als synthetische kettenbildende Schlagwortsprache mit ihren drei charakteristischen Ebenen: dem Schlagwort, der Schlagwortkette und dem Indexat als der Gesamtheit der Schlagwortketten. Es werden semiotische Defizite dieser Schlagwortsprache im Hinblick auf ihre Vollständigkeit und Widerspruchsfreiheit aufgezeigt und entsprechende Vorschläge für ihre Weiterentwicklung gewonnen. Weitere Abschnitte widmen sich dann einzelnen Schlagwortkategorien und den durch sie repräsentierten bibliographischen Entitäten: den Körperschaften, den Ereignissen und den Werken.

0.08914474 = product of:
  0.17828947 = sum of:
    0.021128306 = weight(_text_:und in 788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021128306 = score(doc=788,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14370327 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 788, 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=788)
    0.15716116 = weight(_text_:heading in 788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15716116 = score(doc=788,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 788, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=788)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In the last few years projects such as DESIRE, MACS, CrissCross and KoMoHe have demonstrated the benefits as well as the challenges of mapping between controlled vocabularies. Each project has taken a slightly different approach to the definition and implementation of appropriate types of mapping. The mapping types supported by SKOS are slightly different again. In an ideal world, all major databases would be interconnected; all widely used thesauri, classification schemes and subject heading schemes would map to each other; and all of us would use the same basic types of mapping to enable universal interoperability. Or would we? This paper will discuss the feasibility and desirability of agreeing and implementing standardized mapping types.

Series

Bibliotheca Academica - Reihe Informations- und Bibliothekswissenschaften; Bd. 1

0.07563905 = product of:
  0.3025562 = sum of:
    0.3025562 = weight(_text_:judge in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3025562 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = 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.

0.07428728 = product of:
  0.14857456 = sum of:
    0.017606923 = weight(_text_:und in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017606923 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14370327 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.12252277 = fieldWeight in 3794, 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=3794)
    0.13096763 = weight(_text_:heading in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13096763 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews Ranganathan's description of subject from mathematical angle. Ranganathan was highly influenced by Nineteenth Century mathematician George Cantor and he used the concept of infinity in developing an axiomatic interpretation of subject. Majority of library scientists interpreted the concept of subject merely as a term or descriptor or heading to include the same in cataloguing and subject indexing. Some library scientists interpreted subject on the basis of document, i.e. from the angle of the concept of aboutness or epistemological potential of the document etc. Some people explained subject from the viewpoint of social, cultural or socio-cultural process. Attempts were made to describe subject from epistemological viewpoint. But S R Ranganathan was the first to develop an axiomatic concept of subject on its own. He built up an independent idea of subject that is ubiquitously pervasive with human cognition process. To develop the basic foundation of subject, he used the mathematical concepts of infinity and infinitesimal and construed the set of subjects or universe of subjects as continuous infinite universe. The subject may also exist in extremely micro-form, which was termed as spot subject and analogized with point, which is dimensionless having only an existence. The influence of Twentieth Century physicist George Gamow on Ranganathan's thought has also been discussed.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zu Leben und Werk von S.R. Ranganathan.

0.07428728 = product of:
  0.14857456 = sum of:
    0.017606923 = weight(_text_:und in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017606923 = score(doc=3797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14370327 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.12252277 = fieldWeight in 3797, 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=3797)
    0.13096763 = weight(_text_:heading in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13096763 = score(doc=3797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 3797, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3797)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper analyses the scholarly contribution of S R Ranganathan as reflected in Google Scholar Citations, Web of Science, and Scopus. This paper also identifies popularity of his published works, particularly which are highly referred by the researchers and LIS curriculum designers. His top three highly cited books are namely Prolegomena to Library Classification, The Five Laws of Library Science, and Colon Classification. His top three highly referred journal articles are titled "Hidden Roots of Classification", "Subject Heading and Facet Analysis", and "Colon Classification Edition 7 (1971): A Preview". This paper identifies the articles that cited his works extensively and got considerable citations from the other researchers. Top citing journal articles are namely "The Need for a Faceted Classification as the Basis of All Methods of Information Retrieval", "Ranganathan and the Net: Using Facet Analysis to Search and Organise the World Wide Web" and "Grounded Classification: Grounded Theory and Faceted Classification". These citing articles also indicate that Ranganathan is very relevant to today's researchers in interdisciplinary areas, particularly which belong to the fields of computer applications and information systems.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zu Leben und Werk von S.R. Ranganathan.

0.068052776 = product of:
  0.2722111 = sum of:
    0.2722111 = weight(_text_:heading in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2722111 = score(doc=844,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.6945427 = fieldWeight in 844, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=844)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Sears List of Subject Headings (Miller and McCarthy 2010), first published in 1923, is now in its 20th edition. Like most subject headings lists, apart from being a list of preferred (and non-preferred) headings, it also provides patterns, clear instructions, and examples for coining new subject headings not explicitly listed. Key headings form a vital part of the system of coining new headings. It is proposed that more key headings should be designated. Some candidate headings are described. One far-reaching provision seems to be the use of a subdivision of a preferred heading with all of its NTs. Thus, every preferred heading is a potential key heading for all of its NTs. This proposal works on the principle that what is true of a class is true of its narrower classes of all types. Applying this principle will enormously enhance the capacity of the List without adding even an iota to its text and size.

0.06482567 = product of:
  0.25930268 = sum of:
    0.25930268 = weight(_text_:heading in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25930268 = score(doc=167,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.661607 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article argues that the use of the Library of Congress subject heading "East Indians" in reference to individuals from India represents not only a problematic vestige of colonialism, but also a failure of the principle of literary warrant. It provides an overview of the term's historical roots and then examines whether the term is still widely used in published resources. Although assigning a subject heading is not easy and can involve a choice between contested realities of diverse peoples, the author contends that a rejection of outdated terminology is central to providing any culturally sensitive tool for resource organization.

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 1391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=1391,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 1391, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1391)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wikipedia is frequently viewed as an inclusive medium. But inclusivity within this online encyclopedia is not a simple matter of just allowing anyone to contribute. In its quest for legitimacy as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on outsiders to judge claims championed by rival editors. In choosing these experts, Wikipedians define the boundaries of acceptable comment on any given subject. Inclusivity then becomes a matter of how the boundaries of expertise are drawn. In this article I examine the nature of these boundaries and the implications they have for inclusivity and credibility as revealed through the talk pages produced and sources used by a particular subset of Wikipedia's creators-those involved in writing articles on the topic of Philippine history.

0.06418186 = product of:
  0.25672743 = sum of:
    0.25672743 = weight(_text_:judge in 2301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25672743 = score(doc=2301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 2301, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2301)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the age of mobile commerce, users receive floods of commercial messages. How do users judge the relevance of such information? Is their relevance judgment affected by contextual factors, such as location and time? How do message content and contextual factors affect users' privacy concerns? With a focus on mobile ads, we propose a research model based on theories of relevance judgment and mobile marketing research. We suggest topicality, reliability, and economic value as key content factors and location and time as key contextual factors. We found mobile relevance judgment is affected mainly by content factors, whereas privacy concerns are affected by both content and contextual factors. Moreover, topicality and economic value have a synergetic effect that makes a message more relevant. Higher topicality and location precision exacerbate privacy concerns, whereas message reliability alleviates privacy concerns caused by location precision. These findings reveal an interesting intricacy in user relevance judgment and privacy concerns and provide nuanced guidance for the design and delivery of mobile commercial information.

0.05348488 = product of:
  0.21393952 = sum of:
    0.21393952 = weight(_text_:judge in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21393952 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 611, 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=611)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to resolve a gap in the knowledge of how people with dyslexia interact with information retrieval (IR) systems, specifically an understanding of their information-searching behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - The dyslexia cognitive profile is used to design a logging system, recording the difference between two sets of participants: dyslexic and control users. A standard Okapi interface is used - together with two standard TREC topics - in order to record the information searching behaviour of these users. Findings - Using the log data, the differences in information-searching behaviour of control and dyslexic users, i.e. in the way the two groups interact with Okapi, are established and it also established that qualitative information collected (such as experience etc.) may not be able to account for these differences. Evidence from query variables was unable to distinguish between groups, but differences on topic for the same variables were recorded. Users who view more documents tended to judge more documents as being relevant, in terms of either the user group or topic. Session data indicated that there may be an important difference between the number of iterations used in a search between the user groups, as there may be little effect from the topic on this variable. Originality/value - This is the first study of the effect of dyslexia on information search behaviour, and it provides some evidence to take the field forward.

0.05348488 = product of:
  0.21393952 = sum of:
    0.21393952 = weight(_text_:judge in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21393952 = score(doc=946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 946, 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=946)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In real-world information retrieval systems, the underlying document collection is rarely stable or definitive. This work is focused on the study of signals extracted from the content of documents at different points in time for the purpose of weighting individual terms in a document. The basic idea behind our proposals is that terms that have existed for a longer time in a document should have a greater weight. We propose 4 term weighting functions that use each document's history to estimate a current term score. To evaluate this thesis, we conduct 3 independent experiments using a collection of documents sampled from Wikipedia. In the first experiment, we use data from Wikipedia to judge each set of terms. In a second experiment, we use an external collection of tags from a popular social bookmarking service as a gold standard. In the third experiment, we crowdsource user judgments to collect feedback on term preference. Across all experiments results consistently support our thesis. We show that temporally aware measures, specifically the proposed revision term frequency and revision term frequency span, outperform a term-weighting measure based on raw term frequency alone.

0.05348488 = product of:
  0.21393952 = sum of:
    0.21393952 = weight(_text_:judge in 2089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21393952 = score(doc=2089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 2089, 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=2089)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Expertise retrieval has attracted significant interest in the field of information retrieval. Expert finding has been studied extensively, with less attention going to the complementary task of expert profiling, that is, automatically identifying topics about which a person is knowledgeable. We describe a test collection for expert profiling in which expert users have self-selected their knowledge areas. Motivated by the sparseness of this set of knowledge areas, we report on an assessment experiment in which academic experts judge a profile that has been automatically generated by state-of-the-art expert-profiling algorithms; optionally, experts can indicate a level of expertise for relevant areas. Experts may also give feedback on the quality of the system-generated knowledge areas. We report on a content analysis of these comments and gain insights into what aspects of profiles matter to experts. We provide an error analysis of the system-generated profiles, identifying factors that help explain why certain experts may be harder to profile than others. We also analyze the impact on evaluating expert-profiling systems of using self-selected versus judged system-generated knowledge areas as ground truth; they rank systems somewhat differently but detect about the same amount of pairwise significant differences despite the fact that the judged system-generated assessments are more sparse.

0.05348488 = product of:
  0.21393952 = sum of:
    0.21393952 = weight(_text_:judge in 2781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21393952 = score(doc=2781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 2781, 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=2781)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering (HIVE) system on the inter-indexer consistency of information professionals when assigning keywords to a scientific abstract. This study examined first, the inter-indexer consistency of potential HIVE users; second, the impact HIVE had on consistency; and third, challenges associated with using HIVE. Design/methodology/approach - A within-subjects quasi-experimental research design was used for this study. Data were collected using a task-scenario based questionnaire. Analysis was performed on consistency results using Hooper's and Rolling's inter-indexer consistency measures. A series of t-tests was used to judge the significance between consistency measure results. Findings - Results suggest that HIVE improves inter-indexing consistency. Working with HIVE increased consistency rates by 22 percent (Rolling's) and 25 percent (Hooper's) when selecting relevant terms from all vocabularies. A statistically significant difference exists between the assignment of free-text keywords and machine-aided keywords. Issues with homographs, disambiguation, vocabulary choice, and document structure were all identified as potential challenges. Research limitations/implications - Research limitations for this study can be found in the small number of vocabularies used for the study. Future research will include implementing HIVE into the Dryad Repository and studying its application in a repository system. Originality/value - This paper showcases several features used in HIVE system. By using traditional consistency measures to evaluate a semantic web technology, this paper emphasizes the link between traditional indexing and next generation machine-aided indexing (MAI) tools.

0.05348488 = product of:
  0.21393952 = sum of:
    0.21393952 = weight(_text_:judge in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21393952 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 3271, 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=3271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bias in peer review entails systematic prejudice that prevents accurate and objective assessment of scientific studies. The disparity between referees' opinions on the same paper typically makes it difficult to judge the paper's quality. This article presents a comprehensive study of peer review biases with regard to 2 aspects of referees: the static profiles (factual authority and self-reported confidence) and the dynamic behavioral context (the temporal ordering of reviews by a single reviewer), exploiting anonymized, real-world review reports of 2 different international conferences in information systems / computer science. Our work extends conventional bias research by considering multiple biases occurring simultaneously. Our findings show that the referees' static profiles are more dominant in peer review bias when compared to their dynamic behavioral context. Of the static profiles, self-reported confidence improved both conference fitness and impact-based bias reductions, while factual authority could only contribute to conference fitness-based bias reduction. Our results also clearly show that the reliability of referees' judgments varies along their static profiles and is contingent on the temporal interval between 2 consecutive reviews.

0.05238705 = product of:
  0.2095482 = sum of:
    0.2095482 = weight(_text_:heading in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2095482 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5346592 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.05238705 = product of:
  0.2095482 = sum of:
    0.2095482 = weight(_text_:heading in 3014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2095482 = score(doc=3014,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.5346592 = fieldWeight in 3014, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3014)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Cataloging practices for video games have been in flux since the late 1970s, often lagging behind technological developments. This article describes the history of descriptive cataloging practices and MARC coding for video games. Also discussed are the special problems presented by Library of Congress subject heading and uniform title practice, which were developed for book cataloging rather than for the cataloging of video games themselves.

0.04630405 = product of:
  0.1852162 = sum of:
    0.1852162 = weight(_text_:heading in 1472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1852162 = score(doc=1472,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.47257644 = fieldWeight in 1472, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1472)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The following paper deals with an automatic text classification method which does not require training documents. For this method the German Subject Heading Authority File (SWD), provided by the linked data service of the German National Library is used. Recently the SWD was enriched with notations of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). In consequence it became possible to utilize the subject headings as textual representations for the notations of the DDC. Basically, we we derive the classification of a text from the classification of the words in the text given by the thesaurus. The method was tested by classifying 3826 OAI-Records from 7 different repositories. Mean reciprocal rank and recall were chosen as evaluation measure. Direct comparison to a machine learning method has shown that this method is definitely competitive. Thus we can conclude that the enriched version of the SWD provides high quality information with a broad coverage for classification of German scientific articles.

0.04630405 = product of:
  0.1852162 = sum of:
    0.1852162 = weight(_text_:heading in 3294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1852162 = score(doc=3294,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.47257644 = fieldWeight in 3294, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3294)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

From the very beginnings of library automation, subject authority control has been considered an important bibliographic tool in the Czech National Library (CNL). Effective subject access cannot exist without standardised access points. Subject authorities are considered an indispensable reference tool in supporting the selection of subject access points and normalizing content indexing. Most importantly, they are heavily relied upon when it comes to customisation of links between bibliographic records and subject access points in order to create a user-friendly subject browsing and searching environment. Because of the fact that the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) is widely used in Czech Libraries it has become a readily available language independent subject framework which can be complemented by a more user-friendly subject heading system. In this context, the subject authority control offers a means of enhancing subject headings' access points with terminology and the semantic links available in UDC. Furthermore classification is used to enrich relationships between authority records themselves. The author will discuss in more detail the different aspects and advantages of subject authorities in which a classification and a subject heading system complement one another and the way this is implemented in the CNL.

0.045838673 = product of:
  0.18335469 = sum of:
    0.18335469 = weight(_text_:heading in 1827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18335469 = score(doc=1827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 1827, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1827)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"dwibindu vargiikaraNa" is the Kannada rendering of the revised Colon Classification, 7th Edition, intended essentially for the classification of macro documents. This paper discusses the planning, preparation, and features of Colon Classification (CC) in Kannada, one of the major Indian languages as well as the Official Language of Karnataka, and uploading the CC on the web. Linguistic issues related to the Kannada rendering are discussed with possible solutions. It creates facilities in the field of Indexing Language (IL) to prepare products such as, Subject Heading List, Information Retrieval Thesaurus, and creation of subject glossaries or updating the available subject dictionaries in Kannada.

0.045838673 = product of:
  0.18335469 = sum of:
    0.18335469 = weight(_text_:heading in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18335469 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The US cataloging community is an interorganizational network with the Library of Congress (LC) as the lead organization, which reserves to itself the power to shape cataloging rules. Peripheral members of the network who are interested in modifying changes to the rules or to the network can use various strategies for organizational change that incorporate building ties to the decision-makers located at the hub of the network. The story of William E. Studwell's campaign for a subject heading code illustrates how some traditional scholarly methods of urging change-papers and presentations-are insufficient to achieve reform in an interorganizational network, absent strategies to build alliances with the decision makers.