Search (14050 results, page 9 of 703)

0.06601483 = product of:
  0.2640593 = sum of:
    0.2640593 = weight(_text_:judge in 2998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2640593 = score(doc=2998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 2998, 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=2998)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since millions seek health information online, it is vital for this information to be comprehensible. Most studies use readability formulas, which ignore vocabulary, and conclude that online health information is too difficult. We developed a vocabularly-based, naïve Bayes classifier to distinguish between three difficulty levels in text. It proved 98% accurate in a 250-document evaluation. We compared our classifier with readability formulas for 90 new documents with different origins and asked representative human evaluators, an expert and a consumer, to judge each document. Average readability grade levels for educational and commercial pages was 10th grade or higher, too difficult according to current literature. In contrast, the classifier showed that 70-90% of these pages were written at an intermediate, appropriate level indicating that vocabulary usage is frequently appropriate in text considered too difficult by readability formula evaluations. The expert considered the pages more difficult for a consumer than the consumer did.

0.06601483 = product of:
  0.2640593 = sum of:
    0.2640593 = weight(_text_:judge in 842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2640593 = score(doc=842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 842, 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=842)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Users intuitively know which documents are relevant when they see them. Formal relevance assessment, however, is a complex issue. In this entry relevance assessment are described both from a human perspective and a systems perspective. Humans judge relevance in terms of the relation between the documents retrieved and the way in which these documents are understood and used. This is a subjective and personal judgment and is called user relevance. Systems compute a function between the query and the document features that the systems builders believe will cause documents to be ranked by the likelihood that a user will find the documents relevant. This is an objective measurement of relevance in terms of relations between the query and the documents retrieved-this is called system relevance (or sometimes similarity).

0.06601483 = product of:
  0.2640593 = sum of:
    0.2640593 = weight(_text_:judge in 1391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2640593 = score(doc=1391,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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.

0.06601483 = product of:
  0.2640593 = sum of:
    0.2640593 = weight(_text_:judge in 2301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2640593 = score(doc=2301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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.

0.06601483 = product of:
  0.2640593 = sum of:
    0.2640593 = weight(_text_:judge in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2640593 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 1863, 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=1863)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research revisits the classic Turing test and compares recent large language models such as ChatGPT for their abilities to reproduce human-level comprehension and compelling text generation. Two task challenges- summary and question answering- prompt ChatGPT to produce original content (98-99%) from a single text entry and sequential questions initially posed by Turing in 1950. We score the original and generated content against the OpenAI GPT-2 Output Detector from 2019, and establish multiple cases where the generated content proves original and undetectable (98%). The question of a machine fooling a human judge recedes in this work relative to the question of "how would one prove it?" The original contribution of the work presents a metric and simple grammatical set for understanding the writing mechanics of chatbots in evaluating their readability and statistical clarity, engagement, delivery, overall quality, and plagiarism risks. While Turing's original prose scores at least 14% below the machine-generated output, whether an algorithm displays hints of Turing's true initial thoughts (the "Lovelace 2.0" test) remains unanswerable.

0.065522194 = product of:
  0.13104439 = sum of:
    0.04435967 = weight(_text_:und in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04435967 = score(doc=793,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.30011827 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=793,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Im Zuge zunehmender Globalisierung werden Wissensorganisationssysteme erforderlich, die ein sprachunabhängiges Retrieval ermöglichen, ohne dass dadurch bereits existierende und national bewährte Wissenssysteme obsolet werden. Das durch die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) geförderte und von der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek in Kooperation mit der Fachhochschule Köln durchgeführte Projekt CrissCross leistet einen wesentlichen Beitrag zur Schaffung eines solchen Wissensspeichers, indem es die Sachschlagwörter der deutschen Schlagwortnormdatei (SWD) mit Notationen der Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation sowie mit ihren Äquivalenten der Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) und der französischen Schlagwortsprache RAMEAU (Repertoire d'autorité-matière encyclopédique et alphabétique unifié) verknüpft. Ein erweitertes multilinguales und thesaurusbasiertes Recherchevokabular wird erstellt, das für die inhaltliche Suche nach Dokumenten in heterogen erschlossenen Beständen verwendet werden kann. In diesem Artikel wird die Problematik bei der Verknüpfung semantisch heterogener Systeme unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Unterschiede zwischen der DDC und der SWD skizziert. Die in CrissCross gewählte Methodik bei der Verknüpfung von SWD und DDC wird vorgestellt. Abschließend wird der Nutzen der erstellten Daten für das Retrieval aufgezeigt.

0.06501353 = product of:
  0.2600541 = sum of:
    0.2600541 = weight(_text_:headings in 2781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2600541 = score(doc=2781,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.80417943 = fieldWeight in 2781, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2781)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recognition, by libraries, of the need for improved efficiency and reliability in subject authority control in catalogues led to a study of the feasibility of automatically creating a subject heading validation file by scanning the OLUC. The premises were: that although the file would not be axhaustive, it would contain the majority of frequently used headings; and that the predicted level of accurary in the file would be high. A sample file of Library of Congress assigned subject headings, from the OCLC Subject Headings Corrections database was analyzed. Results showed that: the frequency of use varies inversely with the number of headings at a given rrate of use; a small number of headings with high frequencies of use accounts for the majority of total use, while a large proportion shows very low frequency of use; topical headings account for 2/3 of assigned headings; and error and obsolescence rates are both low and are in inverse relationship to the frequency of heading use. Concludes that an automatically generated subject heading validation file is feasible and could serve various purposes, including: verification of subject heading strings constructed by cataloguers; updating of subject headings in catalogue maintenance; and validation of subject headings during retrospective catalogue conversion

0.06387939 = product of:
  0.12775879 = sum of:
    0.06707949 = weight(_text_:und in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06707949 = score(doc=1676,freq=56.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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)
    0.060679298 = weight(_text_:headings in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060679298 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.18764187 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, 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

0.06369999 = product of:
  0.25479996 = sum of:
    0.25479996 = weight(_text_:headings in 962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25479996 = score(doc=962,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.7879317 = fieldWeight in 962, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=962)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Subject headings do not always adequately express the subject content of books and other library materials. Whether due to cataloguer error or inadequacy in the authority list, this deficiency makes it difficult for users to access information. In an attempt to solve this problem, the study evaluated the adequacy of the LoC Subject Headings assigned to the 23 books of Pierre Bourdieu, whose philosophical ideas were judged likely to form a good test of the ability of the subject headings to reflect the ideas proposed by the author. The study examined the subject headings given to 22 books, and their translations into English, Spanish, Portuguese, and German, comprising 88 records in OCLC as of Dec 91. It was found that most of the books received headings not corresponding to their content, as the headings were assigned from the functionalist paradigm. In general, LCSHs ignore the conceptual categories of other paradigms, do not match the current vocabulary used by social scientists, and are ideologically biased

0.06369999 = product of:
  0.25479996 = sum of:
    0.25479996 = weight(_text_:headings in 1610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25479996 = score(doc=1610,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.7879317 = fieldWeight in 1610, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1610)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority records were compared for established headings that are identical in LCSH (18th ed.) and Moving Image Materials (MIM). The Use For, Broader Term, Narrower Term, and Related Term references in the LCSH authority file were compared with their counterparts in MIM, to determine the proportion of duplication existing between them. Fewer that 10% of these reference headings are identical. A qualitative comparison was made of the 'semantic spaces' inhibited by identical headings in different contexts: a general purpose subject access list is compared with a medium specific form and genre access list. It was found that, in many cases, headings that are identical as character strings have markedly differnt meanings in different contexts. The conclusion offered is that, both quantitatively and qualitatively, pairs of identical headings differ sufficiently from each other that the creation of authority records for each usage represents no duplication in any meaningful sense. The striking divergence, in many instances, between semantic spaces poses intellectual questions regarding the differences between the meaning of subjects and of forms and genres

0.06369999 = product of:
  0.25479996 = sum of:
    0.25479996 = weight(_text_:headings in 4788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25479996 = score(doc=4788,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.7879317 = fieldWeight in 4788, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4788)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vorgänger: 'List of Subject Headings for small libraries, compiled from lists used in nine representative small libraries', Ed.: M.E. Sears. - 1st ed. 1923. - 2nd ed. 1926. - 3rd ed. 1933. - 4th ed. 1939, Ed.: I.S. Monro. - 5th ed. 1944: 'Sears List of Subject Headings', Ed. I. S. Monro. - 6th ed. 1950, Ed.: B.M. Frick. - 7th ed. 1954 - 8th ed. 1959. - 'List of Subject Headings'. - 9th. ed. 1965, Ed.: B.M. Westby. - 10th ed. 1972. - 11th ed. 1977. - 12th ed. 1982. - 13th ed. 1986, Ed.: C. Rovira u. C. Reyes. - 14th ed. 1991. Ed. M.T. Mooney. - 15th ed. 1994, Ed.: J. Miller // Rez. 15th ed.: Knowledge organization 22(1995) no.1, S.45-46 (M.P. Satija)

Footnote

Vgl.: Satija, M.P.: The sixteenth edition (1987) of the Sears' List of Subject Headings in: Knowledge organization 25(1998) no.4, S.202-207

Object

Sears List of Subject Headings

0.06369999 = product of:
  0.25479996 = sum of:
    0.25479996 = weight(_text_:headings in 682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25479996 = score(doc=682,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.7879317 = fieldWeight in 682, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=682)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) headings is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains compatibility with LCSH--any valid Library of Congress subject heading can be converted to FAST headings.

0.06287668 = product of:
  0.12575336 = sum of:
    0.02173171 = weight(_text_:und in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02173171 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 4813, 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=4813)
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes an ongoing project in which the subject headings contained in twelve controlled vocabularies covering multiple disciplines from the humanities to the sciences and including law and education among others are being collapsed into a single vocabulary and reference structure. The design of the database, algorithms created to programmatically link like-concepts, and daily maintenance are detailed. The problems and pitfalls of dealing with multiple vocabularies are noted, as well as the difficulties in relying purely an computer generated algorithms. The application of this megathesaurus to bibliographic records and methodology of retrieval is explained.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.06287668 = product of:
  0.12575336 = sum of:
    0.02173171 = weight(_text_:und in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02173171 = score(doc=9,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 9, 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=9)
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=9,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The MACS (Multilingual access to subjects) project is one of the many projects that are currently exploring solutions to multilingual subject access to online catalogs. Its strategy is to develop a Web based link and search interface through which equivalents between three Subject Heading Languages: SWD/RSWK (Schlagwortnormdatei/Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog) for German, RAMEAU (Repertoire d'Autorite-Matière Encyclopedique et Alphabetique Unifie) for French and LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) for English can be created and maintained, and by which users can access online databases in the language of their choice. Factors that have lead to this approach will be examined and the MACS linking strategy will be explained. The trend to using mapping or linking strategies between different controlled vocabularies to create multilingual access challenges the traditional view of the multilingual thesaurus.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.06287668 = product of:
  0.12575336 = sum of:
    0.02173171 = weight(_text_:und in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02173171 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 913, 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=913)
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Die Klassifikation und ihr Umfeld: Proc. 10. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Münster, 18.-21.6.1986. Hrsg.: P.O. Degens

0.06250924 = product of:
  0.25003695 = sum of:
    0.25003695 = weight(_text_:headings in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25003695 = score(doc=617,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.7732028 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 35(2008) no.1, S.55-58 (M.P. Satija): "The Sears List, first published in 1923, has survived times of destabilizing changes while keeping reasonable continuity with the past. Dr. Joseph Miller, at the helm since 1992 and the longest-serving editor in the eighty-four years of the List's existence, first edited the 15th edition of the Sears (1994). Over the years, the Sears has achieved more than it had hoped for: ever-increasing use the world over. In fact, the turbulent progress of media and information theories has forced the Sears to keep up with the changing times. Knowledge organization is a shifting sand in the electronic era. Vast and varied changes generate not only new information, but also new terms and phrases. It is trite to say that the electronic media have transformed the way in which we access information and knowledge. The new edition of the Sears has absorbed these changes to reflect the times. The 19th edition, released in May 2007, has about 440 new headings, to bring the new total to over 8000 headings, which keeps the growth rate at five percent. Newly-added headings generally fall into one of two categories: a) headings for the new and current subjects and b) headings previously missed. A few more have been modified. New editions are produced regularly to: - incorporate terms for new subjects, - restructure the form of old headings to suit the changing information needs and informationseeking behaviour of the users, - add new terms to old subject headings to reflect current usage, - delete the obsolete subjects, - forge new relations between subjects and their terms. Two major areas of new additions are in the fields of Islam, as might be expected, and the graphic novel- the latter has thirty headings perhaps drawn from the WilsonWeb Database on Graphic Novels Core Collection. ... The lapses are minor and could be forgiven; they in no way detract from this continuously-expanding and well-established tool for subject-cataloguing in small and medium libraries. The handy List and its lucid introduction make Sears an excellent and convenient tool for teaching subject headings' use and principles, as well as methods of vocabulary control. With its glossy and flowery cover, clear typeface and high production standards, the new edition is particularly welcome."

LCSH

Subject headings

Object

Sears List of Subject Headings

Subject

Subject headings

0.06177809 = product of:
  0.12355618 = sum of:
    0.054208413 = weight(_text_:und in 1132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054208413 = score(doc=1132,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.36675057 = fieldWeight in 1132, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1132)
    0.06934777 = weight(_text_:headings in 1132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06934777 = score(doc=1132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 1132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1132)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die Komplexizität medizinischer Fragestellungen und des medizinischen Informationsmanagements war seit den Anfängen der Informatik immer ein besonders wichtiges Thema. Trotz des Scheiterns der Künstlichen Intelligenz in den 80er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts haben deren Kernideen Früchte getragen. Durch kongruente Entwicklung einer Reihe anderer Wissenschaftsdisziplinen und der exponentiellen Entwicklung im Bereich Computerhardware konnten die gestellten, hohen Anforderungen bei der medizinischen Informationssuche doch noch erfüllt werden. Die programmatische Forderung von Tim Berners-Lee betreffend "Semantic Web" im Jahr 2000 hat dem Thema Ontologien für maschinenlesbare Repositorien in Allgemein- und Fachsprache breitere Aufmerksamkeit gewonnen. Da in der Medizin (PubMed) mit dem von NLM schon vor 20 Jahren entwickelten Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) eine funktionierende Ontologie in Form eines semantischen Netzes in Betrieb ist, ist es auch für Medizinbibliothekare und Medizindokumentare hoch an der Zeit, sich damit zu beschäftigen. Ontologien können im Wesen, trotz der informatisch vernebelnden Terminologie, als Werkzeuge der Klassifikation verstanden werden. Hier sind von seiten der Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswissenschaft wesentliche Beiträge möglich. Der vorliegende Bericht bietet einen Einstieg in das Thema, erklärt wesentliche Elemente des UMLS und schließt mit einer kommentierten Anmerkungs- und Literaturliste für die weitere Beschäftigung mit Ontologien.

Content

Dieser Aufsatz ist kein Abgesang auf MeSH (= Medical Subject Headings in Medline/PubMed), wie man/frau vielleicht vermuten könnte. Vielmehr wird - ohne informatiklastiges Fachchinesisch - an Hand des von der National Library of Medicine entwickelten Unified Medical Language System erklärt, worin die Anforderungen an Ontologien bestehen, die im Zusammenhang mit dem Semantic Web allerorten eingefordert und herbeigewünscht werden. Eine Lektüre für Einsteigerinnen, die zum Vertiefen der gewonnenen Begriffssicherheit an Hand der weiterführenden Literaturhinweise anregt. Da das UMLS hier vor allem als Beispiel verwendet wird, werden auch Bibliothekarlnnen, Dokumentarlnnen und Informationsspezialistinnen anderer Fachbereiche den Aufsatz mit Gewinn lesen - und erfahren, dass unser Fachwissen aus der Sacherschließung und der Verwendung und Mitgestaltung von Normdateien und Thesauri bei der Entwicklung von Ontologien gefragt ist! (Eveline Pipp, Universitätsbibliothek Innsbruck). - Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/en/journals/mbi/2006-6/mbi000049.shtml.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.06141512 = product of:
  0.12283024 = sum of:
    0.110024706 = weight(_text_:judge in 3392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110024706 = score(doc=3392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.21354558 = fieldWeight in 3392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3392)
    0.0128055345 = weight(_text_:und in 3392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128055345 = score(doc=3392,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.086636685 = fieldWeight in 3392, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3392)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

BK

06.00 / Information und Dokumentation: Allgemeines

Classification

06.00 / Information und Dokumentation: Allgemeines

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.2, S.302 (L.A. Ennis):"This is an important and timely anthology of articles "on the normative issues surrounding information control" (p. 11). Using an interdisciplinary approach, Moore's work takes a broad look at the relatively new field of information ethics. Covering a variety of disciplines including applied ethics, intellectual property, privacy, free speech, and more, the book provides information professionals of all kinds with a valuable and thought-provoking resource. Information Ethics is divided into five parts and twenty chapters or articles. At the end of each of the five parts, the editor has included a few "discussion cases," which allows the users to apply what they just read to potential real life examples. Part I, "An Ethical Framework for Analysis," provides readers with an introduction to reasoning and ethics. This complex and philosophical section of the book contains five articles and four discussion cases. All five of the articles are really thought provoking and challenging writings on morality. For instance, in the first article, "Introduction to Moral Reasoning," Tom Regan examines how not to answer a moral question. For example, he thinks using what the majority believes as a means of determining what is and is not moral is flawed. "The Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant looks at the reasons behind actions. According to Kant, to be moral one has to do the right thing for the right reasons. By including materials that force the reader to think more broadly and deeply about what is right and wrong, Moore has provided an important foundation and backdrop for the rest of the book. Part II, "Intellectual Property: Moral and Legal Concerns," contains five articles and three discussion cases for tackling issues like ownership, patents, copyright, and biopiracy. This section takes a probing look at intellectual and intangible property from a variety of viewpoints. For instance, in "Intellectual Property is Still Property," Judge Frank Easterbrook argues that intellectual property is no different than physical property and should not be treated any differently by law. Tom Palmer's article, "Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified," however, uses historical examples to show how intellectual and physical properties differ.

0.06129535 = product of:
  0.2451814 = sum of:
    0.2451814 = weight(_text_:headings in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2451814 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.7581877 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06129535 = product of:
  0.2451814 = sum of:
    0.2451814 = weight(_text_:headings in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2451814 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.7581877 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)