Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.082288444 = product of:
  0.12343266 = sum of:
    0.10266554 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10266554 = score(doc=3565,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
    0.020767113 = product of:
      0.041534226 = sum of:
        0.041534226 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041534226 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.060896795 = product of:
  0.09134519 = sum of:
    0.0684437 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0684437 = score(doc=555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=555)
    0.022901488 = product of:
      0.045802977 = sum of:
        0.045802977 = weight(_text_:classification in 555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045802977 = score(doc=555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article discusses indexing practices at the National Agriculture Library. Indexers at NAL scan over 2,200 incoming journals for input into its bibliographic database, AGRICOLA. The National Agriculture Library's coverage extends worldwide covering a broad range of agriculture subjects. Access to AGRICOLA occurs in several ways: onsite search, commercial vendors, Dialog Information Services, Inc. and BRS Information Technologies. The National Agricultural Library uses CAB THESAURUS to describe the subject content of articles in AGRICOLA.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.3, S.89-97

0.04068791 = product of:
  0.061031867 = sum of:
    0.054109495 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054109495 = score(doc=1858,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.27203473 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.006922371 = product of:
      0.013844742 = sum of:
        0.013844742 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013844742 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.029511403 = product of:
  0.088534206 = sum of:
    0.088534206 = sum of:
      0.040077604 = weight(_text_:classification in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040077604 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = queryNorm
          0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.048456598 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048456598 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

4. 1.2007 10:22:26

Source

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

0.025295487 = product of:
  0.07588646 = sum of:
    0.07588646 = sum of:
      0.034352235 = weight(_text_:classification in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034352235 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = queryNorm
          0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
      0.041534226 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041534226 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to examine interindexer consistency (the degree to which indexers, when assigning terms to a chosen record, will choose the same terms to reflect that record) in the PsycINFO database using 60 records that were inadvertently processed twice between 1996 and 1998. Five aspects of interindexer consistency were analysed. Two methods were used to calculate interindexer consistency: one posited by Hooper (1965) and the other by Rollin (1981). Aspects analysed were: checktag consistency (66.24% using Hooper's calculation and 77.17% using Rollin's); major-to-all term consistency (49.31% and 62.59% respectively); overall indexing consistency (49.02% and 63.32%); classification code consistency (44.17% and 45.00%); and major-to-major term consistency (43.24% and 56.09%). The average consistency across all categories was 50.4% using Hooper's method and 60.83% using Rollin's. Although comparison with previous studies is difficult due to methodological variations in the overall study of indexing consistency and the specific characteristics of the database, results generally support previous findings when trends and similar studies are analysed.

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.025032118 = product of:
  0.075096354 = sum of:
    0.075096354 = sum of:
      0.040484495 = weight(_text_:classification in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040484495 = score(doc=5784,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = queryNorm
          0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
      0.034611855 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034611855 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.016361615 = product of:
  0.049084842 = sum of:
    0.049084842 = product of:
      0.098169684 = sum of:
        0.098169684 = weight(_text_:classification in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098169684 = score(doc=2308,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.60332054 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.016361615 = product of:
  0.049084842 = sum of:
    0.049084842 = product of:
      0.098169684 = sum of:
        0.098169684 = weight(_text_:classification in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098169684 = score(doc=404,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.60332054 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.014259104 = product of:
  0.04277731 = sum of:
    0.04277731 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04277731 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Consistency studies have discussed the relationship between indexing consistency and exhaustivity, and it commonly accepted that higher exhaustivity results in lower indexing consistency. However, this issue has been oversimplified, and previous studies contain significant misinterpretations. The aim of this study is investigate the relationship between consistency and exhaustivity based on a large sample and to analyse the misinterpretations in earlier studies. A sample of 3,307 monographs, i.e. 6,614 records was drawn from two Chinese bibliographic catalogues. Indexing consistency was measured using two formulae which were popular in previous indexing consistency studies. A relatively high level of consistency was found (64.21% according to the first formula, 70.71% according to the second). Regarding the relationship between consistency and exhaustivity, it was found that when two indexers had identical exhaustivity, indexing consistency was substantially high. On the contrary, when they had different levels of exhaustivity, consistency was significantly low. It was inevitable with the use of the two formulae. Moreover, a detailed discussion was conducted to analyse the misinterpretations in previous studies.

0.013844742 = product of:
  0.041534226 = sum of:
    0.041534226 = product of:
      0.08306845 = sum of:
        0.08306845 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08306845 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

0.013222182 = product of:
  0.039666545 = sum of:
    0.039666545 = product of:
      0.07933309 = sum of:
        0.07933309 = weight(_text_:classification in 578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07933309 = score(doc=578,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 578, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=578)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist

0.012802321 = product of:
  0.038406964 = sum of:
    0.038406964 = product of:
      0.07681393 = sum of:
        0.07681393 = weight(_text_:classification in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07681393 = score(doc=1054,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 1054, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.011450745 = product of:
  0.034352235 = sum of:
    0.034352235 = product of:
      0.06870447 = sum of:
        0.06870447 = weight(_text_:classification in 1999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06870447 = score(doc=1999,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1999, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl. auch die Erwiderung von T. Mann in: Cataloging and classification quarterly 23(1997) nos.3/4, S.3-45

0.009916636 = product of:
  0.029749908 = sum of:
    0.029749908 = product of:
      0.059499815 = sum of:
        0.059499815 = weight(_text_:classification in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059499815 = score(doc=2670,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Source

International classification. 19(1992) no.4, S.205-209

0.009229829 = product of:
  0.027689485 = sum of:
    0.027689485 = product of:
      0.05537897 = sum of:
        0.05537897 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05537897 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22

0.008263864 = product of:
  0.024791589 = sum of:
    0.024791589 = product of:
      0.049583178 = sum of:
        0.049583178 = weight(_text_:classification in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049583178 = score(doc=554,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The development of regional on-line catalogs and in-house information systems for retrieval of references provide examples of the impact of indexing theory and applications on technical processing. More emphasis must be given to understanding the techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of a file, irrespective of whether that file was created as a library catalog or an index to information sources. The most significant advances in classification theory in recent decades has been as a result of efforts to improve effectiveness of indexing systems. Library classification systems are indexing languages or systems. Courses offered for the preparation of indexers in the United States and the United Kingdom are reviewed. A point of congruence for both the indexer and the library classifier would appear to be the need for a thorough preparation in the techniques of subject analysis. Any subject heading list will suffer from omissions as well as the inclusion of terms which the patron will never use. Indexing theory has provided the technical services department with methods for evaluation of effectiveness. The writer does not believe that these techniques are used, nor do current courses, workshops, and continuing education programs stress them. When theory is totally subjugated to practice, critical thinking and maximum effectiveness will suffer.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.3, S.79-88

0.0080761 = product of:
  0.024228299 = sum of:
    0.024228299 = product of:
      0.048456598 = sum of:
        0.048456598 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048456598 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26

0.0076338295 = product of:
  0.022901488 = sum of:
    0.022901488 = product of:
      0.045802977 = sum of:
        0.045802977 = weight(_text_:classification in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045802977 = score(doc=4778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Online public access catalogues enable users to undertake subject searching by classification schedules, natural language, or controlled language terminology. In practice the 1st method is little used. Controlled language systems require indexers to index specifically and consistently. A comparative survey was made of indexing practices at Amsterdam and Mijmegen university libraries. On average Amsterdam assigned each document 3.5 index terms against 1.8 at Nijmegen. This discrepancy in indexing policy is the result of long-standing practices in each institution. Nijmegen has failed to utilise the advantages offered by online cataloges

0.006679601 = product of:
  0.020038802 = sum of:
    0.020038802 = product of:
      0.040077604 = sum of:
        0.040077604 = weight(_text_:classification in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040077604 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.006679601 = product of:
  0.020038802 = sum of:
    0.020038802 = product of:
      0.040077604 = sum of:
        0.040077604 = weight(_text_:classification in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040077604 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 23(1996) no.1, S.73-98