Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047683053 = product of:
  0.095366105 = sum of:
    0.095366105 = sum of:
      0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053292118 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

n this article, we report on the first large-scale study of end-user understanding of subject headings. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which children and adults understood subdivided subject headings and to suggest improvements for improving understanding of subject headings. The 1991 Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging, which served as the impetus for the study. We demonstrated that adults understood subject headings better than children; however, both adults and children assigned correct meanings to less than half of the subject headings they examined. Neither subject heading context nor subdivision order had an effect on understanding. Based on our findings, we challenge the library community to make major changes to the Library of Congress Subject Headings system that have the potential to increase end-user understanding of subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.01884161 = product of:
  0.03768322 = sum of:
    0.03768322 = product of:
      0.07536644 = sum of:
        0.07536644 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07536644 = score(doc=5353,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.36948 = fieldWeight in 5353, 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=5353)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The impetus for a large-scale study on subject heading understanding was a recommendation of the Library of Congress (LC) Subject Subdivisions Conference that suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging. This paper focuses on unexpected large-scale study findings about multiple meanings for subdivided subject headings and the effects that changes of meaning for different orders of subdivisions had on the meanings that end users and librarians provided to subdivided subject headings. Findings about changes of meaning in subdivided subject headings did not dissuade the authors regarding their recommendation that the library community adopt a standard order of subdivisions. The authors also give suggestions for additional studies of subject heading understanding that build on this one.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 28(1999) no.3, S.19-43

0.01776404 = product of:
  0.03552808 = sum of:
    0.03552808 = product of:
      0.07105616 = sum of:
        0.07105616 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07105616 = score(doc=5432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 5432, 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=5432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 32(2001) no.2, S.5-30

0.0133230295 = product of:
  0.026646059 = sum of:
    0.026646059 = product of:
      0.053292118 = sum of:
        0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053292118 = score(doc=543,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 543, 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=543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 15(1992) no.4, S.19-45

0.0070123314 = product of:
  0.014024663 = sum of:
    0.014024663 = product of:
      0.028049326 = sum of:
        0.028049326 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028049326 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05