IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/amedoc/v17y1966i2p96-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Imprecision in meaning measured by inconsistency of indexing

Author

Listed:
  • John F. Tinker

Abstract

Meaning is defined as the relevance of a word to the concept it labels. Following Hillman, meaning is tetradic: the relation of a word and a concept, to a degree, within a corpus, indexers, in choosing or assigning all words strongly associated with concepts of a document, assert that the document means the word; therefore, consistency of indexing measures the precision with which meaning is understood by the indexers. From an indexing experiment designed to avoid all judgments of truth or correctness of indexing, the following results were obtained: (1) When descriptors are freely chosen, the more descriptors assigned to a document, even when relatively few are assigned, the more difficult is the retrieval of it. (2) By restricting the descriptors used in searching, the disadvantage noted in (1) can be overcome. (3) Possibly, older words are used more frequently and less precisely than newer words. (4) A graph of the total number of applications of a descriptor versus the ranked document serial number lucidly illustrates the precision of meaning of the descriptor; a precisely understood word gives a rectangular curve; a less precise one, an S‐shape. Many words have imprecise meanings even to specialists in scientific fields.

Suggested Citation

  • John F. Tinker, 1966. "Imprecision in meaning measured by inconsistency of indexing," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 96-102, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:17:y:1966:i:2:p:96-102
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.5090170207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090170207
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.5090170207?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:17:y:1966:i:2:p:96-102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.