Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026484797 = product of:
  0.123595715 = sum of:
    0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 7731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042009152 = score(doc=7731,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 7731, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7731)
    0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 7731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04079328 = score(doc=7731,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 7731, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7731)
    0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 7731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04079328 = score(doc=7731,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 7731, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7731)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Arguments in favor of using classification numbers for subject access are discussed. A survey of online catalog users of the Israeli academic libraries (the ALEPH system), together with monitoring of user transactions of this system revealed almost no use of classification numbers as an access point; the basic reason being that users do not understand the meanings of the codes. Also, it is maintained that monographs, in which much activity is invested, are not our main source of information, and stet the use of the online catalog for subject search in any case declines over time. Therefore, it is suggested that resources be channeled in other directions

0.0153913405 = product of:
  0.07182626 = sum of:
    0.044909675 = weight(_text_:subject in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044909675 = score(doc=5442,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.41819993 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
    0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013458292 = score(doc=5442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
    0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013458292 = score(doc=5442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Report on a discussion forum of the ALCTS SAC Subcommittee an Metadata and Subject Analysis

Content

The overall objective of this study was to examine the implementation of a different approach to the expression of the subject content of monographs in the cataloging record, i.e., the use of a post-coordinate, thesaurus of keywords, using inter-indexer consistency testing and in-depth analysis of mistakes in indexing. A sample of 50 non-fiction monographs was subject cataloged by 16 library science students (non-experienced indexers) using the new Hebrew Thesaurus of Indexing Terms (1996). The 800 indexing records of the non-experienced indexers were compared to the "correct indexing records" (prepared by a panel of three experienced indexers). Indexing consistency was measured using two different formulas used in previous inter-indexer studies. A medium level of inter-indexer consistency was found. In the analysis of mistakes, it was found that the most frequent mistake was the assignment of indexing terms to minor subject matter (i.e., subjects that were less than 20% of the content of the book). Among possible explanations offered for these finding are: sparseness of scope notes in the thesaurus, the priority given by Israeli public libraries to Hebrew language materials in the development of their non-fiction collection, and the size of the output of the Israeli publishing industry of non-fiction materials in Hebrew. The results of the consistency tests and the mistakes analysis were also examined in light of several factors: (1) the number of indexing terms assigned; (2) the length of the monographs (number of pages); and (3) subject area of each monograph. The same examinations were carried out for the subject cataloging records prepared by the Israeli Center for Libraries (ICL) for these monographs.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.2, S.29-54

0.008156957 = product of:
  0.057098698 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5762,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5762, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5762)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 5762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=5762,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 5762, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5762)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Despite its young age compared to similar programs in the United States, cataloging instruction in Israel has also been transformed to reflect the changes in the work done in libraries based on technological innovations and conceptions held by those involved in academia. Cataloging instruction in Israel is marked by a number of factors: * There has always been a division, carried through to today, between distinct and independent courses on various aspects of cataloging: A course on classification, a course on descriptive cataloging and a course on indexing. Even today, these courses are requirements in all of the instructional frameworks, though the length of the course has been reduced over the years * Over the years additional courses have been introduced as a reflection of the technological developments and work in the field * The majority of courses are now taught in computer labs * Switch to instruction by academics and not by librarians, workers in the field, as was customary for many decades * Focus of instruction in university departments on theory and understanding of concepts.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 41(2005) nos.3/4, S.443-460

0.00576784 = product of:
  0.04037488 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 12(1991) nos.3/4, S.51-67

0.0018186709 = product of:
  0.02546139 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)