Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.049547743 = sum of:
  0.018916111 = product of:
    0.075664446 = sum of:
      0.075664446 = weight(_text_:author's in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.075664446 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33969283 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050548375 = queryNorm
          0.22274372 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.030631632 = product of:
    0.061263263 = sum of:
      0.061263263 = weight(_text_:p in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.061263263 = score(doc=3651,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050548375 = queryNorm
          0.33707932 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.
The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.

0.029189022 = sum of:
  0.018916111 = product of:
    0.075664446 = sum of:
      0.075664446 = weight(_text_:author's in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.075664446 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33969283 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050548375 = queryNorm
          0.22274372 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.010272911 = product of:
    0.020545822 = sum of:
      0.020545822 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020545822 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1770118 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050548375 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...

0.028879777 = product of:
  0.057759553 = sum of:
    0.057759553 = product of:
      0.11551911 = sum of:
        0.11551911 = weight(_text_:p in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11551911 = score(doc=218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.63560283 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025269805 = product of:
  0.05053961 = sum of:
    0.05053961 = product of:
      0.10107922 = sum of:
        0.10107922 = weight(_text_:p in 1841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10107922 = score(doc=1841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.55615246 = fieldWeight in 1841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.022992894 = product of:
  0.045985788 = sum of:
    0.045985788 = sum of:
      0.032288574 = weight(_text_:p in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032288574 = score(doc=1858,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050548375 = queryNorm
          0.1776564 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.013697214 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013697214 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1770118 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050548375 = queryNorm
          0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.
Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.

0.022068797 = product of:
  0.044137593 = sum of:
    0.044137593 = product of:
      0.17655037 = sum of:
        0.17655037 = weight(_text_:author's in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17655037 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33969283 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.51973534 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The work is an adaptation of the author's dissertation and has the following chapters: (1) background and introduction; (2) a problem in classification theory; (3) previous fiction analysis theories and systems and 'The left hand of darkness'; (4) fiction warrant and critical warrant; (5) experimental fiction analysis system (EFAS); (6) application and evaluation of EFAS. Appendix 1 gives references to fiction analysis systems and appendix 2 lists EFAS coding sheets

0.018916111 = product of:
  0.037832223 = sum of:
    0.037832223 = product of:
      0.15132889 = sum of:
        0.15132889 = weight(_text_:author's in 473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15132889 = score(doc=473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33969283 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 473, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=473)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study descriptions of a novel by 100 users at 2 Swedish public libraries, Malmö and Molndal, Mar-Apr 95, were compared to the index terms used for the novels at these libraries. Describes previous systems for fiction indexing, the 2 libraries, and the users interviewed. Compares the AMP system with their own model. The latter operates with terms under the headings phenomena, frame and author's intention. The similarities between the users' and indexers' descriptions were sufficiently close to make it possible to retrieve fiction in accordance with users' wishes in Molndal, and would have been in Malmö, had more books been indexed with more terms. Sometimes the similarities were close enough for users to retrieve fiction on their own

0.018916111 = product of:
  0.037832223 = sum of:
    0.037832223 = product of:
      0.15132889 = sum of:
        0.15132889 = weight(_text_:author's in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15132889 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33969283 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article argues that authorial stance should be taken into account in the indexing of scientific documents. Authorial stance has been widely studied in linguistics and is a typical feature of scientific writing that reveals the uniqueness of each author's perspective, their scientific contribution, and their thinking. We argue that authorial stance guides the reading of scientific documents and that it can be used to characterize the knowledge contained in such documents. Our research has previously shown that people reading dissertations are interested both in a topic and in a document's authorial stance. Now, we would like to propose a two-tiered indexing system. Dissertations would first be divided into paragraphs; then, each information unit would be defined by topic and by the markers of authorial stance present in the document.

0.018049862 = product of:
  0.036099724 = sum of:
    0.036099724 = product of:
      0.07219945 = sum of:
        0.07219945 = weight(_text_:p in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07219945 = score(doc=34,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01783428 = product of:
  0.03566856 = sum of:
    0.03566856 = product of:
      0.14267424 = sum of:
        0.14267424 = weight(_text_:author's in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14267424 = score(doc=2653,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.33969283 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.42000958 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Introduction The document at hand is often regarded as the most important entity for analysis in the indexing situation. The indexer's focus is directed to the "entity and its faithful description" (Soergel, 1985, 227) and the indexer is advised to "stick to the text and the author's claims" (Lancaster, 2003, 37). The indexer's aim is to establish the subject matter based an an analysis of the document with the goal of representing the document as truthfully as possible and to ensure the subject representation's validity by remaining neutral and objective. To help indexers with their task they are guided towards particular and important attributes of the document that could help them determine the document's subject matter. The exact attributes the indexer is recommended to examine varies, but typical examples are: the title, the abstract, the table of contents, chapter headings, chapter subheadings, preface, introduction, foreword, the text itself, bibliographical references, index entries, illustrations, diagrams, and tables and their captions. The exact recommendations vary according to the type of document that is being indexed (monographs vs. periodical articles, for instance). It is clear that indexers should provide faithful descriptions, that indexers should represent the author's claims, and that the document's attributes are helpful points of analysis. However, indexers need much more guidance when determining the subject than simply the documents themselves. One approach that could be taken to handle the Situation is a useroriented approach in which it is argued that the indexer should ask, "how should I make this document ... visible to potential users? What terms should I use to convey its knowledge to those interested?" (Albrechtsen, 1993, 222). The basic idea is that indexers need to have the users' information needs and terminology in mind when determining the subject matter of documents as well as when selecting index terms.

0.017121518 = product of:
  0.034243036 = sum of:
    0.034243036 = product of:
      0.06848607 = sum of:
        0.06848607 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06848607 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1770118 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.015763424 = product of:
  0.03152685 = sum of:
    0.03152685 = product of:
      0.1261074 = sum of:
        0.1261074 = weight(_text_:author's in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1261074 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33969283 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

0.015763424 = product of:
  0.03152685 = sum of:
    0.03152685 = product of:
      0.1261074 = sum of:
        0.1261074 = weight(_text_:author's in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1261074 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33969283 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.

0.014439888 = product of:
  0.028879777 = sum of:
    0.028879777 = product of:
      0.057759553 = sum of:
        0.057759553 = weight(_text_:p in 2489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057759553 = score(doc=2489,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 2489, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2489)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.014439888 = product of:
  0.028879777 = sum of:
    0.028879777 = product of:
      0.057759553 = sum of:
        0.057759553 = weight(_text_:p in 1353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057759553 = score(doc=1353,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 1353, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1353)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.013697214 = product of:
  0.027394429 = sum of:
    0.027394429 = product of:
      0.054788858 = sum of:
        0.054788858 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054788858 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1770118 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.013697214 = product of:
  0.027394429 = sum of:
    0.027394429 = product of:
      0.054788858 = sum of:
        0.054788858 = weight(_text_:22 in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054788858 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1770118 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.012634902 = product of:
  0.025269805 = sum of:
    0.025269805 = product of:
      0.05053961 = sum of:
        0.05053961 = weight(_text_:p in 1783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05053961 = score(doc=1783,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1783, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1783)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012634902 = product of:
  0.025269805 = sum of:
    0.025269805 = product of:
      0.05053961 = sum of:
        0.05053961 = weight(_text_:p in 1961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05053961 = score(doc=1961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.93-97.

0.012634902 = product of:
  0.025269805 = sum of:
    0.025269805 = product of:
      0.05053961 = sum of:
        0.05053961 = weight(_text_:p in 5845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05053961 = score(doc=5845,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174732 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050548375 = queryNorm
            0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 5845, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)