Search (86 results, page 1 of 5)

0.08480324 = product of:
  0.14840566 = sum of:
    0.017794685 = weight(_text_:of in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017794685 = score(doc=5784,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
    0.07806182 = weight(_text_:congress in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07806182 = score(doc=5784,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3726805 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
    0.03767643 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03767643 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
    0.014872721 = product of:
      0.029745443 = sum of:
        0.029745443 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029745443 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5714286 = coord(4/7)

Abstract

This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.08013879 = product of:
  0.1869905 = sum of:
    0.013421593 = weight(_text_:of in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013421593 = score(doc=2276,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
    0.08831687 = weight(_text_:congress in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08831687 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42163986 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
    0.08525203 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08525203 = score(doc=2276,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The purpose of the current study has been twofold: (1) to develop a valid methodology for studying indexing consistency in MARC records and, (2) to study such consistency in subject cataloging practice between non-LC libraries and the Library of Congress

0.07588743 = product of:
  0.17707066 = sum of:
    0.028471498 = weight(_text_:of in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028471498 = score(doc=2274,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
    0.08831687 = weight(_text_:congress in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08831687 = score(doc=2274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42163986 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
    0.06028229 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06028229 = score(doc=2274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Recently announced subject cataloging practices at the Library of Congress, calling for systematic duplication of entries at specific and generic levels, are in direct violation of the rule of exclusively specific entry, hitherto accepted by LC. It is argued that if the new practices are justified, consistency calls for their general application, which results in abandonment of the rule. But the new practices do not accomplish their ostensible goals, do not reveal more of the content of LC's collections, do introduce new inconveniences, do constitute a pointless enlargement of catalogs, and hence should be abandoned

0.048005197 = product of:
  0.112012126 = sum of:
    0.021353623 = weight(_text_:of in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021353623 = score(doc=2700,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
    0.06393902 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06393902 = score(doc=2700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36948 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
    0.02671948 = product of:
      0.05343896 = sum of:
        0.05343896 = weight(_text_:service in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05343896 = score(doc=2700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.28403997 = fieldWeight in 2700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

This paper presents the findings of a study of indexing procedure with the use of a thesaurus for post-coordination. In the first phase of the study, the indexing records of 50 books, prepared by a central cataloging service (the Israeli Center for Libraries), were compared with the indexing records for these books prepared by three independent indexers. In the second phase, indexing records for three books prepared by 51 librarians were studied. In both phases, indexing records were analyzed for mistakes and possible reasons for these mistakes are offered.

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.04278384 = product of:
  0.09982896 = sum of:
    0.026260145 = weight(_text_:of in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026260145 = score(doc=230,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
    0.02082181 = product of:
      0.04164362 = sum of:
        0.04164362 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04164362 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

This study represents an attempt to compare indexing consistency between the catalogers of the National Library of Iran (NLI) on one side and 12 major academic and special libraries located in Tehran on the other. The research findings indicate that in 75% of the libraries the subject inconsistency values are 60% to 85%. In terms of subject classes, the consistency values are 10% to 35.2%, the mean of which is 22.5%. Moreover, the findings show that whenever the number of assigned terms increases, the probability of consistency decreases. This confirms Markey's findings in 1984.

Date

4. 1.2007 10:22:26

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) no.1, S.67-76

0.04174866 = product of:
  0.14612031 = sum of:
    0.021221403 = weight(_text_:of in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021221403 = score(doc=2277,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
    0.12489891 = weight(_text_:congress in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12489891 = score(doc=2277,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.5962888 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Indexing consistency between Library of Congress and British Library catalogers using the LCSH is compared.82 titles published in 1987 in the field of library and information science were identified for comparison, and for each title its LC subject headings, assigned by both LC and BL catalogers, were compared. By applying Hooper's 'consistency of a pair' equation, the average indexing consistency value was calculated for the 82 titles. The average indexing value between LC and BL catalogers is 16% for exact matches, and 36% for partial matches

0.038024075 = product of:
  0.08872284 = sum of:
    0.025663862 = weight(_text_:of in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025663862 = score(doc=3565,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.017847266 = product of:
      0.035694532 = sum of:
        0.035694532 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035694532 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

In this article recording evidence for data values in addition to the values themselves in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is proposed, with the aim of improving the expressiveness and reliability of those records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. Recording the history of changes in data values is also proposed, with the aim of reinforcing recorded evidence. First, evidence that can be recorded is categorized into classes: identifiers of rules or tasks, action descriptions of them, and input and output data of them. Dates of recording values and evidence are an additional class. Then, the relative usefulness of evidence classes and also levels (i.e., the record, data element, or data value level) to which an individual evidence class is applied, is examined. Second, examples that can be viewed as recorded evidence in existing bibliographic records and current cataloging rules are shown. Third, some examples of bibliographic records and descriptive metadata with notes of evidence are demonstrated. Fourth, ways of using recorded evidence are addressed.

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.8, S.872-882

0.03739372 = product of:
  0.13087802 = sum of:
    0.020132389 = weight(_text_:of in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020132389 = score(doc=2262,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
    0.11074563 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11074563 = score(doc=2262,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.63995814 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The biomedical book collection in the Genetech Library and Information Services was first inventoried and cataloged in 1983 when it totaled about 2000 titles. Cataloging records were retrieved from the OCLC system and used as a basis for cataloging. A year of cataloging produced a list of 1900 subject terms. More than one term describing the same concept often appears on the list, and no hierarchical structure related the terms to one another. As the collection grew, the subject catalog became increasingly inconsistent. To bring consistency to subject cataloging, a thesaurus of biomedical terms was constructed using the list of subject headings as a basis. This thesaurus follows the broad categories of the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings and, with some exceptions, the Guidelines for the Establishment and Development of Monolingual Thesauri. It has enabled the cataloger in providing greater in-depth subject analysis of materials added to the collection and in consistently assigning subject headings to cataloging record.

0.037142187 = product of:
  0.0866651 = sum of:
    0.016776992 = weight(_text_:of in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016776992 = score(doc=1858,freq=100.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          10.0 = tf(freq=100.0), with freq of:
            100.0 = termFreq=100.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.06393902 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06393902 = score(doc=1858,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36948 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.0059490884 = product of:
      0.011898177 = sum of:
        0.011898177 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011898177 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = 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)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

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.
Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.03468892 = product of:
  0.12141121 = sum of:
    0.018757246 = weight(_text_:of in 5238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018757246 = score(doc=5238,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5238, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5238)
    0.102653965 = weight(_text_:distribution in 5238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102653965 = score(doc=5238,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24019864 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42737114 = fieldWeight in 5238, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4703507 = idf(docFreq=505, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5238)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Wolfram and Zhang are interested in the effect of different indexing exhaustivity, by which they mean the number of terms chosen, and of different index term distributions and different term weighting methods on the resulting document cluster organization. The Distance Angle Retrieval Environment, DARE, which provides a two dimensional display of retrieved documents was used to represent the document clusters based upon a document's distance from the searcher's main interest, and on the angle formed by the document, a point representing a minor interest, and the point representing the main interest. If the centroid and the origin of the document space are assigned as major and minor points the average distance between documents and the centroid can be measured providing an indication of cluster organization. in the form of a size normalized similarity measure. Using 500 records from NTIS and nine models created by intersecting low, observed, and high exhaustivity levels (based upon a negative binomial distribution) with shallow, observed, and steep term distributions (based upon a Zipf distribution) simulation runs were preformed using inverse document frequency, inter-document term frequency, and inverse document frequency based upon both inter and intra-document frequencies. Low exhaustivity and shallow distributions result in a more dense document space and less effective retrieval. High exhaustivity and steeper distributions result in a more diffuse space.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.944-952

0.033808924 = product of:
  0.118331224 = sum of:
    0.02465704 = weight(_text_:of in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465704 = score(doc=1054,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
    0.09367418 = weight(_text_:congress in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09367418 = score(doc=1054,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.4472166 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article presents the results of research into the automatic selection of Library of Congress Classification numbers based on the titles and subject headings in MARC records. The method used in this study was based on partial match retrieval techniques using various elements of new recors (i.e., those to be classified) as "queries", and a test database of classification clusters generated from previously classified MARC records. Sixty individual methods for automatic classification were tested on a set of 283 new records, using all combinations of four different partial match methods, five query types, and three representations of search terms. The results indicate that if the best method for a particular case can be determined, then up to 86% of the new records may be correctly classified. The single method with the best accuracy was able to select the correct classification for about 46% of the new records.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 43(1992), S.130-148

0.0318618 = product of:
  0.1115163 = sum of:
    0.03423904 = weight(_text_:of in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03423904 = score(doc=2308,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.4986512 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
    0.07727726 = weight(_text_:congress in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07727726 = score(doc=2308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36893487 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The LCC and DDC systems were devised and updated by librarians who had and have no access to the eventual frequency of use of each number in those classification systems. 80% of the monographs in a MARC file of over 1.000.000 records are classified into 20% of the classification numbers in the field of library science and only 20% of the mongraphs are classified into 80% of the classification numbers in the field of library science. Classification of monographs coulld be made easier and performed more accurately if many of the little used and unused numbers were eliminated and many of the most crowded numbers were expanded. A number of examples are included

0.03129665 = product of:
  0.10953827 = sum of:
    0.021221403 = weight(_text_:of in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021221403 = score(doc=2268,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
    0.08831687 = weight(_text_:congress in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08831687 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42163986 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Beginning with Cutter, theorists of subject headings have conceded that certain elements of systematic arrangement in the dictionary catalog are inevitable; yet the fact that no specific guidelines have ever been developed for the determination of the extent to which subject collocation at the expense of specific and direct entry should be allowed has resulted in the many irregularities and inconsistencies now existing in the LCSH

0.027754607 = product of:
  0.09714112 = sum of:
    0.018832127 = weight(_text_:of in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018832127 = score(doc=492,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
    0.07830899 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07830899 = score(doc=492,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

An earlier article ('Cataloging must change' by D. Gregor and C. Mandel in: Library journal 116(1991) no.6, S.42-47) has popularized the belief that there is low consistency (only 10-20% agreement) among subject cataloguers in assigning LCSH. Because of this alleged lack og consistency, the article suggests, cataloguers 'can be more accepting in variations in subject choices' in copy cataloguing. Argues that this inference is based on a serious misreading of previous studies of indexer consistency. The 10-20% figure actually derives from studies of people trying to guess the same natural language key words, precisely in the absence of vocabulary control mechanisms such as thesauri or LCSH. Concludes that sources cited fail support their conclusion and some directly contradict it. Raises the concern that a naive acceptance by the library profession of the 10-20% claim can only have negative consequences for the quality of subject cataloguing created, and accepted throughout the country

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 23(1997) nos.3/4, S.3-45

0.027590385 = product of:
  0.09656634 = sum of:
    0.021970814 = weight(_text_:of in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021970814 = score(doc=404,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
    0.074595526 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074595526 = score(doc=404,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Melvil Dewey provided generally applicable classification guidelines or rules with his classification schedules, beginning with the second edition of his scheme. Many cataloging textbooks have adopted these guidelines. Recent editions of the DDC, however, provide considerably changed, quite intricate, and edition-specific rules. The resulting two different sets of classification rules are similar in theory but very different in application. Classifiers must be aware of both sets. They are summarized in two decision charts that are intended to illustrate the differences and similarities between the two sets of rules and to encourage consistent classification decisions. The need is expressed for a parallel, end-user-oriented searching code

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 8(1988) no.2, S.49-70

0.026831284 = product of:
  0.09390949 = sum of:
    0.016776992 = weight(_text_:of in 1511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016776992 = score(doc=1511,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1511, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1511)
    0.07713249 = product of:
      0.15426499 = sum of:
        0.15426499 = weight(_text_:service in 1511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15426499 = score(doc=1511,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18813887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.8199528 = fieldWeight in 1511, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.284727 = idf(docFreq=1655, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1511)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abtracts) started in 1987 as a bimonthly indexing and abstracting service in the society field, aimed at practitioners as well as sociologists. Considers the following aspects of the service: arrangement of ASSIA; journal coverage; indexing approach; services for subscribers; and who are the users?

0.026618358 = product of:
  0.09316425 = sum of:
    0.018568728 = weight(_text_:of in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018568728 = score(doc=5612,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
    0.074595526 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074595526 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.2, S.5-40

0.026534371 = product of:
  0.092870295 = sum of:
    0.026632648 = weight(_text_:of in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026632648 = score(doc=2670,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
    0.06623765 = weight(_text_:congress in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06623765 = score(doc=2670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A total of 16 classifiers made a subject analysis of a set of books such that some of the books were first classified by the UDC anf then indexed with terms from the General Finnish Subject Headings while another set were processed in the opposite order. Finally books on the same subject were either classifies or indexed. The total number of books processed was 581. A comparison was made of the time required for processing in different situations and of the number of classes or subject headings used. The time figures were compared with corresponding data from the British Library (1972) and the Library of Congress (1990 and 1991). The author finds that the contents analysis requires one third, classification one third and indexing obe third of the time, if the document is both classified and indexed. There was a plausible correlation (o.51) between the length of experience in classification and the decrease in the time required for classing. The average number of UDC numbers was 4,3 and the average number of terms from the list of subject headings was 4,0

0.024649458 = product of:
  0.0862731 = sum of:
    0.025990805 = weight(_text_:of in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025990805 = score(doc=5442,freq=60.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.37852538 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          7.745967 = tf(freq=60.0), with freq of:
            60.0 = termFreq=60.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
    0.06028229 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06028229 = score(doc=5442,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 5442, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5442)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Report on a discussion forum of the ALCTS SAC Subcommittee an Metadata and Subject Analysis

Content

The overall objective of this study was to examine the implementation of a different approach to the expression of the subject content of monographs in the cataloging record, i.e., the use of a post-coordinate, thesaurus of keywords, using inter-indexer consistency testing and in-depth analysis of mistakes in indexing. A sample of 50 non-fiction monographs was subject cataloged by 16 library science students (non-experienced indexers) using the new Hebrew Thesaurus of Indexing Terms (1996). The 800 indexing records of the non-experienced indexers were compared to the "correct indexing records" (prepared by a panel of three experienced indexers). Indexing consistency was measured using two different formulas used in previous inter-indexer studies. A medium level of inter-indexer consistency was found. In the analysis of mistakes, it was found that the most frequent mistake was the assignment of indexing terms to minor subject matter (i.e., subjects that were less than 20% of the content of the book). Among possible explanations offered for these finding are: sparseness of scope notes in the thesaurus, the priority given by Israeli public libraries to Hebrew language materials in the development of their non-fiction collection, and the size of the output of the Israeli publishing industry of non-fiction materials in Hebrew. The results of the consistency tests and the mistakes analysis were also examined in light of several factors: (1) the number of indexing terms assigned; (2) the length of the monographs (number of pages); and (3) subject area of each monograph. The same examinations were carried out for the subject cataloging records prepared by the Israeli Center for Libraries (ICL) for these monographs.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.2, S.29-54

0.024305651 = product of:
  0.085069776 = sum of:
    0.018832127 = weight(_text_:of in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018832127 = score(doc=263,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
    0.06623765 = weight(_text_:congress in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06623765 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article analyses how gender matters are handled in indexing languages. The examples chosen were the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the UNESCO Thesaurus (UT) and the European Women's Thesaurus (EWT). The study is based on an analysis of the entries Man/Men and Woman/Women, their subdivisions and established relationship appearing under these entries. Other headings or descriptors are also listed when they allude to men or women but the gender sense occupies only second or third place in the entry, in the shape of an adjective or a second noun. A lack of symmetry, in the treatment of gender is noted, with recommendations being made for equal status for men and women, which should, however, avoid unnecessary enumerations.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch