Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034577962 = product of:
  0.069155924 = sum of:
    0.069155924 = product of:
      0.13831185 = sum of:
        0.13831185 = weight(_text_:headings in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13831185 = score(doc=5919,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.55686975 = fieldWeight in 5919, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An understanding of the workings of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is one of the most valuable conceptual tools a researcher can have. The subject heading system is by no means obvious or self-evident, however; it must be taught, explained, and exemplified by librarians. Several points must be covered explicitly. The cross-reference notation of UF, BT, RT, SA, and NT has to be explained; the importance of choosing the most specific heading available, rather than a general term, must also be emphasized. There are four ways to find the most specific LCSH terms for a particular topic; two of them come from using the red books, two from using the online catalog itself. All four ways are important; none is obvious. Each must be taught

Source

The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T.Stone

0.019963596 = product of:
  0.039927192 = sum of:
    0.039927192 = product of:
      0.079854384 = sum of:
        0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079854384 = score(doc=5012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgement or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model - and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.

0.019963596 = product of:
  0.039927192 = sum of:
    0.039927192 = product of:
      0.079854384 = sum of:
        0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079854384 = score(doc=3869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In order to reduce the problems of information overload, librarians and indexers have created systems of categorization that allow large numbers of individual books or articles to be perceived initially through smaller numbers of categories of literature. These categories can be either subject or format groupings. Format designations are particularly useful in segregating reference works from larger collections or retrievals. The distinctive nature, and the purposes and uses of reference works ("tertiary literature" composed of 60% or more of files or lists, as opposed to "primary" or "secondary" literature) are discussed. The mechanisms for finding such works via Library of Congress Subject Headings, or via the peculiarities of their shelving in either the Library of Congress Classification or the Dewey Decimal Classification, are explained. "Publication types" and "document type" searches within databases covering formats other than books are also treated.