Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

5.577613E-4 = product of:
  0.008924181 = sum of:
    0.008924181 = weight(_text_:in in 2431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924181 = score(doc=2431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.037112754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027283683 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 2431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2431)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

2.0916048E-4 = product of:
  0.0033465677 = sum of:
    0.0033465677 = weight(_text_:in in 3679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033465677 = score(doc=3679,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.037112754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.027283683 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3679, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3679)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Subject queries were extracted from 3 universities' online catalogues and analysed to determine the extend to which they matched subject headings in the LCSH. Computer analyses show that nearly 25% of the subject queries entered by online catalogue users are exact matches of LCSH. Yet, manual analyses show that, even though a user matches or closely matches LCSH-mr, the citations retrieved by this vocabulary are not necessarily satisfactory. Sometimes the closest LCSH-mr is not at all pertinent to a user's topic of interest. This study presents reasons why close matches of LCSH-mr are not always satisfactory and suggests approaches to finding the best matches of the catalogue's controlled vocabulary