Svenonius, E.; McGarry, D.: Objectivity in evaluating subject heading assignment (1993)
0.00
0.0048825825 = product of:
0.012206456 = sum of:
0.0032507253 = weight(_text_:s in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0032507253 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
0.038659193 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.035557263 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
0.00895573 = weight(_text_:a in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00895573 = score(doc=5612,freq=12.0), product of:
0.040999193 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.035557263 = queryNorm
0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Recent papers have called attention to discrepancies in the assignment of LCSH. While philosophical arguments can be made that subject analysis, if not a logical impossibility, at least is point-of-view dependent, subject headings continue to be assigned and continue to be useful. The hypothesis advanced in the present project is that to a considerable degree there is a clear-cut right and wrong to LCSH subject heading assignment. To test the hypothesis, it was postulated that the assignment of a subject heading is correct if it is supported by textual warrant (at least 20% of the book being cataloged is on the topic) and is constructed in accordance with the LoC Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. A sample of 100 books on scientific subjects was used to test the hypothesis
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.2, S.5-40
- Type
- a
Svenonius, E.: Access to nonbook materials : the limits of subject indexing for visual and aural languages (1994)
0.00
0.0031574338 = product of:
0.007893585 = sum of:
0.003715115 = weight(_text_:s in 8263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003715115 = score(doc=8263,freq=2.0), product of:
0.038659193 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.035557263 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 8263, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8263)
0.00417847 = weight(_text_:a in 8263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00417847 = score(doc=8263,freq=2.0), product of:
0.040999193 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.035557263 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 8263, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8263)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.8, S.600-606
- Type
- a