Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0386405 = product of:
  0.077281 = sum of:
    0.077281 = sum of:
      0.056465574 = weight(_text_:headings in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056465574 = score(doc=2293,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211677 = queryNorm
          0.22734113 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.020815425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020815425 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211677 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...

0.023290861 = product of:
  0.046581723 = sum of:
    0.046581723 = product of:
      0.093163446 = sum of:
        0.093163446 = weight(_text_:headings in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093163446 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Publishers present novels with summaries, librarians provide subject headings, classification numbers and annotations, literary theorists write reviews. Readers share opinions and tags in social networks. These groups share interest in the same novel and possibly in the same library catalogs. I analyze the descriptions of novels written by these four groups to propose the enhancement of library catalogs. Results show that the story, information about the author, genre, personal experience with reading the novel, and an evaluation (awards, personal evaluation) are consistently presented by all four groups and should become standard elements for the subject description of fiction.

0.017346188 = product of:
  0.034692377 = sum of:
    0.034692377 = product of:
      0.06938475 = sum of:
        0.06938475 = weight(_text_:22 in 245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06938475 = score(doc=245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knjiznice za prihodnost : napredek in sodelovanje : zbornik referatov [ Libraries for the future : development and collaboration: proceedings / Professional conference of Union of associations of Slovene Librarians], Portoroz, October 22-23, 2007; ed. M. Ambrozic

0.01663633 = product of:
  0.03327266 = sum of:
    0.03327266 = product of:
      0.06654532 = sum of:
        0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06654532 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

0.01663633 = product of:
  0.03327266 = sum of:
    0.03327266 = product of:
      0.06654532 = sum of:
        0.06654532 = weight(_text_:headings in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06654532 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.

0.010407712 = product of:
  0.020815425 = sum of:
    0.020815425 = product of:
      0.04163085 = sum of:
        0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163085 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 103, 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=103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.008673094 = product of:
  0.017346188 = sum of:
    0.017346188 = product of:
      0.034692377 = sum of:
        0.034692377 = weight(_text_:22 in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692377 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3611, 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=3611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 6.2010 14:22:43