Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022779368 = product of:
  0.045558736 = sum of:
    0.045558736 = sum of:
      0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008118451 = score(doc=2205,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2205, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2205)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=2205,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2205, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2205)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Form subdivisions have always been an important part of the Library of Congress Subject Headings. However, when the MARC format was developed, no separate subfield code to identify form subdivisions was defined. Form and topical subdivisions were both included within a general subdivision category. In 1995, the USMARC Advisory Group approved a proposal defining subfield v for form subdivisions, and in 1999 the Library of Congress (LC) began identifying form subdivisions with the new code. However, there are millions of older bibliographic records lacking the explicit form subdivision coding. Identifying form subdivisions retrospectively is not a simple task. An algorithmic method was developed to identify form subdivisions coded as general subdivisions. The algorithm was used to identify 2,563 unique form subdivisions or combinations of form subdivisions in OCLC's WorldCat. The algorithm proved to be highly accurate with an error rate estimated to be less than 0.1%. The observed usage of the form subdivisions was highly skewed with the 100 most used form subdivisions or combinations of subdivisions accounting for 90% of the assignments.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 6816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=6816,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 6816, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=1781,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recognition, by libraries, of the need for improved efficiency and reliability in subject authority control in catalogues led to a study of the feasibility of automatically creating a subject heading validation file by scanning the OLUC. The premises were: that although the file would not be axhaustive, it would contain the majority of frequently used headings; and that the predicted level of accurary in the file would be high. A sample file of Library of Congress assigned subject headings, from the OCLC Subject Headings Corrections database was analyzed. Results showed that: the frequency of use varies inversely with the number of headings at a given rrate of use; a small number of headings with high frequencies of use accounts for the majority of total use, while a large proportion shows very low frequency of use; topical headings account for 2/3 of assigned headings; and error and obsolescence rates are both low and are in inverse relationship to the frequency of heading use. Concludes that an automatically generated subject heading validation file is feasible and could serve various purposes, including: verification of subject heading strings constructed by cataloguers; updating of subject headings in catalogue maintenance; and validation of subject headings during retrospective catalogue conversion

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=6109,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes FAST, the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology, a project at OCLC to make Library of Congress Subject Headings easier to use in Dublin Core metadata by breaking out facets of space, time, and form. Work on FAST can be watched at its web site, http://www.miskatonic.org/library/, which has recent presentations and reports. It is interesting to see facets and Dublin Core combined, though both LCSH and FAST subject headings are beyond what most people making a small faceted classification would want or need.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3816,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3816, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is by far the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains upward compatibility with LCSH, and any valid set of LC subject headings can be converted to FAST headings.

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=492,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An analysis of a sample of 9.442 headings assigned by the LoC to bibliographic records disclosed 2 types of invalid headings: those that were erroneous and those that were obsolete. Each type revealed recurring patterns. Errors and obsolete elements occuring in assigned heading involve MARC coding, terminology in main headings and subdivisions, application of subdivisions, and in mechanical elements such as punctuation and capitalization. Different headings (e.g. personal name, corporate name, topical, etc.) display different patterns as well as predominance of errors and obsoleteness. Although the overall error rate is low, an awareness and understanding of patterns of errors and obsolescnce in subject heading strings should contribute to improvement in subject heading assignment and subject authority control

Type

a