Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0026772693 = product of:
  0.016063616 = sum of:
    0.016063616 = weight(_text_:in in 340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016063616 = score(doc=340,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 340, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=340)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

For a variety of reasons, reclassification was a popular project in libraries in the 1960s. Although such projects have faded from the limelight, some of the reasons for doing them remain valid today, i.e., a need to cut processing costs, participation in cooperative ventures, the inconvenience caused by working with a collection split between two classification systems, and continuing changes in the Dewey schedules. This article compares the steps needed for reclassifying in a manual environment with those required when the library has an in-house computer system. The comparison shows how using the latter makes a reclassification project more feasible than it would be in a totally manual library. The article also discusses various issues associated with reclassification in an automated environment such as the problem posed by a frozen public catalog and the combining of reclassification and conversion projects.