Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.040340956 = product of:
  0.08068191 = sum of:
    0.08068191 = product of:
      0.16136383 = sum of:
        0.16136383 = weight(_text_:headings in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16136383 = score(doc=6941,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.6496814 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explores the question of whether academic libraries keep up with the changes in the LCSH system. Analysis of the handling of 15 subject headings in 50 academic library catalogues available via the Internet found that libraries are not consistently maintaining subject authority control, or making syndetic references and scope notes in their catalogues. Discusses the results from the perspective of the libraries' performance, performance on the headings overall, performance on references, performance on the type of change made to the headings,a nd performance within 3 widely used onlien catalogue systems (DRA, INNOPAC and NOTIS). Discusses the implications of the findings in relationship to expressions of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of subject cataloguing expressed by discussion groups on the Internet

0.034577962 = product of:
  0.069155924 = sum of:
    0.069155924 = product of:
      0.13831185 = sum of:
        0.13831185 = weight(_text_:headings in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13831185 = score(doc=2670,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.55686975 = fieldWeight in 2670, 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=2670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A total of 16 classifiers made a subject analysis of a set of books such that some of the books were first classified by the UDC anf then indexed with terms from the General Finnish Subject Headings while another set were processed in the opposite order. Finally books on the same subject were either classifies or indexed. The total number of books processed was 581. A comparison was made of the time required for processing in different situations and of the number of classes or subject headings used. The time figures were compared with corresponding data from the British Library (1972) and the Library of Congress (1990 and 1991). The author finds that the contents analysis requires one third, classification one third and indexing obe third of the time, if the document is both classified and indexed. There was a plausible correlation (o.51) between the length of experience in classification and the decrease in the time required for classing. The average number of UDC numbers was 4,3 and the average number of terms from the list of subject headings was 4,0

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

0.028232787 = product of:
  0.056465574 = sum of:
    0.056465574 = product of:
      0.11293115 = sum of:
        0.11293115 = weight(_text_:headings in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11293115 = score(doc=2638,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations

0.026618127 = product of:
  0.053236254 = sum of:
    0.053236254 = product of:
      0.10647251 = sum of:
        0.10647251 = weight(_text_:headings in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10647251 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.42867854 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Indexing consistency between Library of Congress and British Library catalogers using the LCSH is compared.82 titles published in 1987 in the field of library and information science were identified for comparison, and for each title its LC subject headings, assigned by both LC and BL catalogers, were compared. By applying Hooper's 'consistency of a pair' equation, the average indexing consistency value was calculated for the 82 titles. The average indexing value between LC and BL catalogers is 16% for exact matches, and 36% for partial matches

0.019963596 = product of:
  0.039927192 = sum of:
    0.039927192 = product of:
      0.079854384 = sum of:
        0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 1054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079854384 = score(doc=1054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 1054, 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=1054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents the results of research into the automatic selection of Library of Congress Classification numbers based on the titles and subject headings in MARC records. The method used in this study was based on partial match retrieval techniques using various elements of new recors (i.e., those to be classified) as "queries", and a test database of classification clusters generated from previously classified MARC records. Sixty individual methods for automatic classification were tested on a set of 283 new records, using all combinations of four different partial match methods, five query types, and three representations of search terms. The results indicate that if the best method for a particular case can be determined, then up to 86% of the new records may be correctly classified. The single method with the best accuracy was able to select the correct classification for about 46% of the new records.

0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22

0.012142331 = product of:
  0.024284663 = sum of:
    0.024284663 = product of:
      0.048569325 = sum of:
        0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048569325 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26