Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"McGarry, D."
  • × theme_ss:"Inhaltsanalyse"
  1. Svenonius, E.; McGarry, D.: Objectivity in evaluating subject heading assignment (1993) 0.02
    0.021981878 = product of:
      0.043963756 = sum of:
        0.043963756 = product of:
          0.08792751 = sum of:
            0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08792751 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051756795 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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