Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Inhaltsanalyse"
  • × theme_ss:"Indexierungsstudien"
  1. 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
  2. Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002) 0.02
    0.020247538 = product of:
      0.040495075 = sum of:
        0.040495075 = sum of:
          0.026618127 = weight(_text_:headings in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.026618127 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051211677 = queryNorm
              0.107169636 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
          0.01387695 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.01387695 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051211677 = queryNorm
              0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Footnote
    Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.

Types