Crovisier, R.; Intner, S.S.: Classification for astronomy : the QB schedule of the Library of Congress Classification (1987)
0.03
0.026155427 = product of:
0.052310854 = sum of:
0.052310854 = product of:
0.10462171 = sum of:
0.10462171 = weight(_text_:q in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10462171 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28916505 = queryWeight, product of:
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.04415143 = queryNorm
0.3618062 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.5493927 = idf(docFreq=171, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The overall format of the QB schedule still bears the imprint of its origin in late Victorian times and can be puzzling to those acquainted with recent ideas in the field. This article explores some of the factors behind the present appearance of the schedule, current areas of research in astronomy and how they relate to its history, and particular deficiencies in the QBs for dealing with recent research. Before the 1950s, astronomy was a very limited science, concerned mainly with optical observations of the heavens and the analysis of celestial motions and stellar interiors. More than one-fourth of all fundamental astronomical phenomena have been observed for the first time within the past 30 years. The invention of non-optical means of observation and the exploration of space greatly increased the resolving power of known objects within the solar system and gave rise to new topics. Recent research in astronomy greatly increased the scope of topics within the science, while, paradoxically, making astronomy itself a less clearly defined subject. Astronomy's debt to other sciences is seen most clearly in Library of Congress Classification's tendency to scatter astronomical topics throughout the rest of the Q schedule. Suggestions are offered for changes which could make QB a more relevant method of classifying current astronomy materials.
