Svenonius, E.; McGarry, D.: Objectivity in evaluating subject heading assignment (1993)
0.00
0.0030878722 = product of:
0.009263616 = sum of:
0.009263616 = product of:
0.018527232 = sum of:
0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018527232 = score(doc=5612,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.043811057 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
