Search (13455 results, page 3 of 673)

0.07939491 = product of:
  0.31757963 = sum of:
    0.31757963 = weight(_text_:heading in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31757963 = score(doc=1492,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.8102998 = fieldWeight in 1492, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1492)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An analysis of a sample of 9.442 headings assigned by the LoC to bibliographic records disclosed 2 types of invalid headings: those that were erroneous and those that were obsolete. Each type revealed recurring patterns. Errors and obsolete elements occuring in assigned heading involve MARC coding, terminology in main headings and subdivisions, application of subdivisions, and in mechanical elements such as punctuation and capitalization. Different headings (e.g. personal name, corporate name, topical, etc.) display different patterns as well as predominance of errors and obsoleteness. Although the overall error rate is low, an awareness and understanding of patterns of errors and obsolescnce in subject heading strings should contribute to improvement in subject heading assignment and subject authority control

0.07939491 = product of:
  0.31757963 = sum of:
    0.31757963 = weight(_text_:heading in 2803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31757963 = score(doc=2803,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.8102998 = fieldWeight in 2803, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2803)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the theory and practice of subject headings, the principle and application of subject heading lists in various countries, and the present situation of the Chinese subject heading list in Taiwan. Suggests improvements to the chinese Subject Headings as follows: to increase the number of subject headings; to control the vocabulary to be used; to use fixed fields of Chinese MARC, performing the partial function of subdivision in the chinese Subject Headings; to announce the addition, correction and deletion of subject headings regularly and to compile a users' manual; to establish a national subject heading authority file in the MARC format; and to use the Chinese Subject Headings to organize Internet resources

0.07939491 = product of:
  0.31757963 = sum of:
    0.31757963 = weight(_text_:heading in 3708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31757963 = score(doc=3708,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.8102998 = fieldWeight in 3708, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3708)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recognises the limitations of the existing files of Library of Congress name and subject authority records for indirect geographic subdivision. Makes recommendations for enhancements to existing authority records, which would enable online systems to assist in subject heading formulation and verify, with limited assistance by human intermediaries, whether geographic subdivision is authorized for use with a particular main heading and whether the correct form of indirect geographic subdivision is authorized for use with a particular main heading and whether the correct form of indirect geographic subdivision is given. A study of subdivided subject headings in a large bibliographic data base forms the basis of the recommendations

0.07939491 = product of:
  0.31757963 = sum of:
    0.31757963 = weight(_text_:heading in 464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31757963 = score(doc=464,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.8102998 = fieldWeight in 464, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=464)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In reclassifying a Library and Information Science library from DDC to LC, an attempt was made to concentrate books with related subject headings on the shelf for maximum shelf retrieval even in cases where the Subject Authorities or C.I.P. assign them varying numbers. Most of the shelf concentration was achieved either by selecting a single number for a given heading and then classifying all books with the heading in that number or by replacing the standard LC number for a heading with one which placed it together with related books on the shelf.

0.07858058 = product of:
  0.31432232 = sum of:
    0.31432232 = weight(_text_:heading in 5417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31432232 = score(doc=5417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.80198884 = fieldWeight in 5417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5417)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07858058 = product of:
  0.31432232 = sum of:
    0.31432232 = weight(_text_:heading in 6225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31432232 = score(doc=6225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.80198884 = fieldWeight in 6225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6225)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07858058 = product of:
  0.31432232 = sum of:
    0.31432232 = weight(_text_:heading in 2167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31432232 = score(doc=2167,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.80198884 = fieldWeight in 2167, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2167)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The GRIS subject heading scheme is the outcome of a collaborative project of Italian research and academic libraries. Describes the efforts to introduce the scheme to a number of libraries in the Siena Library Service in Italy in the last 3 years. Notes the phases of this project, pricipally a series of trainign seminars and a year of experimentation, before agreement by most of the libraries to implement the scheme. Describes the main features of the electronic subject heading files as they now exist, as they cope with pre existing schemes and the new scheme. Provides statistical sata on these files and outlines the problems which remain to be solved in thre implementation of the scheme

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: The introduction of the GRIS subject heading scheme in a multi library system: reality and continuing problems

Object

GRIS subject heading scheme

0.07858058 = product of:
  0.31432232 = sum of:
    0.31432232 = weight(_text_:heading in 336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31432232 = score(doc=336,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.80198884 = fieldWeight in 336, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=336)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07858058 = product of:
  0.31432232 = sum of:
    0.31432232 = weight(_text_:heading in 4916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31432232 = score(doc=4916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.80198884 = fieldWeight in 4916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4916)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07858058 = product of:
  0.31432232 = sum of:
    0.31432232 = weight(_text_:heading in 433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31432232 = score(doc=433,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.80198884 = fieldWeight in 433, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=433)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07844715 = product of:
  0.1568943 = sum of:
    0.06521695 = weight(_text_:und in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06521695 = score(doc=1676,freq=56.0), product of:
        0.14370327 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.4538307 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          7.483315 = tf(freq=56.0), with freq of:
            56.0 = termFreq=56.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
    0.091677345 = weight(_text_:heading in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091677345 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39192855 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.2339134 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"Magda Heiner-Freiling, die Leiterin der Abteilung Sacherschließung am Frankfurter Standort der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek, ist am 22. Juli 2007 im Alter von 57 Jahren während ihres Urlaubs tödlich verunglückt. Sie wird in unserer Erinnerung weiterleben als Kollegin, deren enormes Fachwissen wir ebenso schätzten wie ihre warmherzige Sorge um das Wohlergehen ihrer Kollegen und Mitarbeiter. Sie war eine exzellente Expertin und engagierte Bibliothekarin und sie war dabei vor allem auch eine herzliche, immer hilfsbereite, sich für andere notfalls auch kämpferisch einsetzende, mitfühlende Kollegin und Vorgesetzte. Magda Heiner-Freiling verband, integrierte, schaffte Nähe und Vertrautheit nicht nur in ihrer unmittelbaren Umgebung, sondern mühelos auch über geografische Entfernungen hinweg. Ihren Kampfgeist, ihre Loyalität, ihre soziale Kompetenz, ihre Begeisterungsfähigkeit und ihre erfrischende Direktheit habe ich vor allem in den vergangenen zwei Jahren geschätzt, in denen sie mir als Abteilungsleiterin gegenübersaß. Nach ihrem 1. Staatsexamen in den Fächern Deutsch, Englisch und Erziehungswissenschaften sowie weiteren Studien in den Fächern Neuere deutsche Literaturwissenschaft, wissenschaftliche Politik und europäische Ethnologie an der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz und an der Philipps-Universität in Marburg begann 1974 ihr bibliothekarischer Werdegang als Bibliotheksreferendarin bei der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek in Frankfurt am Main. 1976 legte sie die bibliothekarische Staatsprüfung für den höheren Dienst an wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken an der Bibliotheksschule Frankfurt am Main ab. Neben ihrer Tätigkeit als Fachreferentin hat Magda Heiner-Freiling von der ersten Stunde an bei der RSWK-Entwicklung mitgearbeitet. Sie betreute die Belange der öffentlichen Bibliotheken mit großem Engagement und führte Anfang der neunziger Jahre die »Expertengruppe Erschließung für Kinder- und Jugendliteratur, Belletristik, Schul- und Berufsschulbücher«; auch hat sie sich viele Jahre in die Arbeit der Expertengruppe RSWK/SWD eingebracht. Ihrem ausgeprägten Interesse für das Andere, für andere Sprachen, andere Kulturen, entsprach ihr besonderes Interesse für die internationale Klassifikationspraxis und -theorie und den multilingualen Ansatz von Normvokabularien. Sie war von 1994 bis 2000 Mitglied des IFLA-Gremiums »Section on Classification and Indexing / Standing Committee« und hat diese Arbeit immer mit großer Begeisterung gemacht. Darüber hinaus hat sie in den IFLA Working Groups »Working Group of Anonymous Classics«, »Working Group on Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri« und »Working Group >Survey on Subject Heading Languages in National Bibliographies<« aktiv mitgearbeitet.
Magda Heiner-Freiling war die treibende Kraft, sie war die Initiatorin, die Seele bei der Einführung der Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation in Deutschland; sie war Projektleiterin der DDC-Übertragung ins Deutsche (»DDC Deutsch«, 2002-2005), Vorsitzende der Expertengruppe DDC (seit 2001) und hat das Konsortium DDC mitbegründet. Ihre Freude an Sprachen erwies sich in der Gestaltung und tatkräftigen Mitarbeit im Projekt MACS (»Multilingual Access to Subject Headings«); aus den Erfahrungen mit der DDC erwuchs ein neues Projekt »CrissCross«. Magda Heiner-Freiling hat die bibliothekarische Arbeit als ein zweites Zuhause angesehen, als einen Lebensraum, den es aus Sicht einer engagierten Gewerkschaftlerin zu gestalten galt. Sie ist darin aufgegangen und hat mit ihrem Wissen und ihrem Fachverstand ihr bibliothekarisches Umfeld geprägt. Gleichzeitig hat sie zwei Kindergroßgezogen und war mit dem kulturellen Leben in Frankfurt sehr verwachsen. Als leidenschaftlich Reisende war sie viel zwischen Marokko und der Seidenstraße unterwegs, erlernte die arabische Sprache, war aber genauso für ihre großzügige, herzliche Gastfreundschaft bekannt und beherbergte zu Hause immer wieder Gäste aus der Bibliothekswelt. Wir trauern um einen wunderbaren Menschen. Magda Heiner-Freiling wird in der Erinnerung ihrer Kolleginnen und Kollegen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek, der Zunft der Sacherschließer in Deutschland und weltweit, weiterleben: als eine Kollegin, deren enormes Fachwissen wir ebenso schätzten wie ihr lebendiges Interesse an ihrem Gegenüber, ihre Herzlichkeit, Hilfsbereitschaft, Offenheit, ihr Engagement für soziale Gerechtigkeit und die Sorge um das Wohlergehen der Menschen in ihrer beruflichen Umgebung. Eine solche Kombination von Expertise und Mitmenschlichkeit ist rar. Magda Heiner-Freiling fehlt uns sehr - in jeder Beziehung."

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 54(2007) H.4/5, S.293

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.

0.074878834 = product of:
  0.29951534 = sum of:
    0.29951534 = weight(_text_:judge in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29951534 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The need for criteria by which to judge the adequacy of an abstract is felt most strongly when evaluating machine-produced abstracts. In order to develop a set of criteria, a survey was conducted of the instructions prepared by various scientific publications as a guide to their abstracters in the preparation of copy. One-hundred-and-thirty sets of instructions were analyzed and compared as to their function, content, and form. It was concluded that, while differences in subject matter do not necessarily require different kinds of abstracts, there are significant variations between the informative and the indicative abstract. A set of criteria for the writing of an acceptable abstract of science literature was derived. The adequacy of these criteria is still to be validated, and the athors' plans for fututre research in this area are specified

0.074878834 = product of:
  0.29951534 = sum of:
    0.29951534 = weight(_text_:judge in 4844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29951534 = score(doc=4844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = 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%

0.074878834 = product of:
  0.29951534 = sum of:
    0.29951534 = weight(_text_:judge in 7418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29951534 = score(doc=7418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = 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

0.074878834 = product of:
  0.29951534 = sum of:
    0.29951534 = weight(_text_:judge in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29951534 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = 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

0.074878834 = product of:
  0.29951534 = sum of:
    0.29951534 = weight(_text_:judge in 4295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29951534 = score(doc=4295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = 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

0.074878834 = product of:
  0.29951534 = sum of:
    0.29951534 = weight(_text_:judge in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29951534 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 2851, 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=2851)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports the design of a Chinese test collection with multilingual queries and the application of this test collection to evaluate information retrieval Systems. The effective indexing units, IR models, translation techniques, and query expansion for Chinese text retrieval are identified. The collaboration of East Asian countries for construction of test collections for cross-language multilingual text retrieval is also discussed in this paper. As well, a tool is designed to help assessors judge relevante and gather the events of relevante judgment. The log file created by this tool will be used to analyze the behaviors of assessors in the future.

0.074878834 = product of:
  0.29951534 = sum of:
    0.29951534 = weight(_text_:judge in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29951534 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5009224 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06479252 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 2162, 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=2162)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

OFTEN LIBRARIES TRY TO ASSESS DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICE for their user populations in comprehensive terms that judge its overall success or failure. This article's key assumption is that the people involved must be understood before services can be assessed, especially if evaluators and developers intend to improve a digital library product. Its argument is simply that anthropology can provide the initial understanding, the intellectual basis, on which informed choices about sample population, survey design, or focus group selection can reasonably be made. As an example, this article analyzes the National Gallery of the Spoken Word (NGSW). It includes brief descriptions of nine NGSW micro-cultures and three pairs of dichotomies within these micro-cultures.

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.