{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027882441597588545, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006782215523737754, 'mean_word_length': 5.234741784037559, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of controlled vocabularies by inter-indexer consistency

Introduction. Several controlled vocabularies are used for indexing three journal articles to check if with a list of descriptors are achieved better or equals of consistency rates that with a standard thesaurus and augmented thesaurus. Method. A set of terminology of Library and Information Science was used to build a list of descriptors with equivalence relations (USE and UF), a standard thesaurus and a augmented thesaurus (all the descriptors have scope notes). Subsequently, three articles were indexed by selected indexers who had varying degrees of experience – on the one hand Library and Information Science students and on the other, professionals from various documentation centres. Hooper’s measure to find the consistency between pairs of novice indexers and experts has been applied. Analysis. Data were tabulated and analysed systematically according pairs of novice indexers and experts has been applied. Results. The tool with the best results is the list of descriptors (39.5% consistency), followed by the augmented thesaurus (29.8%) and, with an almost identical value, the standard thesaurus (27.5%). Conclusion. It is concluded that the list of descriptors in both groups returns better indexing consistency but we need more research.