Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.007594201 = product of:
  0.045565203 = sum of:
    0.045565203 = product of:
      0.091130406 = sum of:
        0.091130406 = weight(_text_:ausbildung in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091130406 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2561309 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04772181 = queryNorm
            0.35579622 = fieldWeight in 5919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Ausbildung

0.0023896701 = product of:
  0.01433802 = sum of:
    0.01433802 = weight(_text_:in in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01433802 = score(doc=492,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06491381 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04772181 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

An earlier article ('Cataloging must change' by D. Gregor and C. Mandel in: Library journal 116(1991) no.6, S.42-47) has popularized the belief that there is low consistency (only 10-20% agreement) among subject cataloguers in assigning LCSH. Because of this alleged lack og consistency, the article suggests, cataloguers 'can be more accepting in variations in subject choices' in copy cataloguing. Argues that this inference is based on a serious misreading of previous studies of indexer consistency. The 10-20% figure actually derives from studies of people trying to guess the same natural language key words, precisely in the absence of vocabulary control mechanisms such as thesauri or LCSH. Concludes that sources cited fail support their conclusion and some directly contradict it. Raises the concern that a naive acceptance by the library profession of the 10-20% claim can only have negative consequences for the quality of subject cataloguing created, and accepted throughout the country

0.002299461 = product of:
  0.013796765 = sum of:
    0.013796765 = weight(_text_:in in 6135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013796765 = score(doc=6135,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06491381 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04772181 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 6135, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6135)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Beitrag einer 'Conference on Bibliographic Control in the New Millennium (Library of Congress)'

0.0019511573 = product of:
  0.011706944 = sum of:
    0.011706944 = weight(_text_:in in 662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706944 = score(doc=662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06491381 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04772181 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=662)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: Rare books and manuscripts librarianship 11(1996) no.1, S.59-61 (M. Ryan)

0.0016897519 = product of:
  0.010138511 = sum of:
    0.010138511 = weight(_text_:in in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010138511 = score(doc=3869,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06491381 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04772181 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In order to reduce the problems of information overload, librarians and indexers have created systems of categorization that allow large numbers of individual books or articles to be perceived initially through smaller numbers of categories of literature. These categories can be either subject or format groupings. Format designations are particularly useful in segregating reference works from larger collections or retrievals. The distinctive nature, and the purposes and uses of reference works ("tertiary literature" composed of 60% or more of files or lists, as opposed to "primary" or "secondary" literature) are discussed. The mechanisms for finding such works via Library of Congress Subject Headings, or via the peculiarities of their shelving in either the Library of Congress Classification or the Dewey Decimal Classification, are explained. "Publication types" and "document type" searches within databases covering formats other than books are also treated.

0.0013796766 = product of:
  0.00827806 = sum of:
    0.00827806 = weight(_text_:in in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00827806 = score(doc=5012,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06491381 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04772181 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgement or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model - and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.

0.0013007715 = product of:
  0.007804629 = sum of:
    0.007804629 = weight(_text_:in in 7799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007804629 = score(doc=7799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06491381 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04772181 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 7799, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7799)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: Library quarterly 64(1994) no.2, S.219-221 (J. Krikelas); Journal of documentation 50(1994) no.3, S.258-260 (R.M. Brunt); Journal of librarianship and information science 26(1994) no.2, S.107-109 (A.G. Curwen); Library journal 118(1993) no.13, S.168 (R. Smith); Mitteilungsblatt VdB NW N.F. 46(1995) H.4, S.444-445 (H.D. Gebauer)