Svenonius, E.; McGarry, D.: Objectivity in evaluating subject heading assignment (1993)
0.03
0.03293825 = product of:
0.0658765 = sum of:
0.0658765 = product of:
0.131753 = sum of:
0.131753 = weight(_text_:headings in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.131753 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.5304626 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, 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
