Svenonius, E.; McGarry, D.: Objectivity in evaluating subject heading assignment (1993)
0.00
0.002374294 = product of:
0.004748588 = sum of:
0.004748588 = product of:
0.009497176 = sum of:
0.009497176 = weight(_text_:a in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009497176 = score(doc=5612,freq=12.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
- Type
- a
