Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011329013 = product of:
  0.05664506 = sum of:
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4494, 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=4494)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

BibliotheekBlad. 2(1998) no.10/11, S.22-24

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=906,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reply to an article by B. Schaap and W. Dussel in Bibliotheek en samenleving 19(1990) no.4, in which it is suggested that the SISO classification used in adult sections of Dutch public libraries, may be adapted for use in children's libraries. However, experience shows that SISO's highly-structured nater makes it difficult for both adults and children to understand. Moreover, because related aspects of the same subject are scattered throughout the scheme's main categories, the user must first understand how to use a library's cataloue. However, a more useful system is to arrange books in broad categories according to children's interests, e.g. football and horses. To enable sucha method to succeed public libraries and school resource centres must agree a common scheme

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 1524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=1524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 1524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1524)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

United States libraries use classification to provide subject browsing in open stacks. The DDC used by 85% of American libraries, is a theoretical, universal attempt to organize all knowledge. The LCC lacks intellectual consistency since it was based upon library warrant to organize materials in one collection. Many academic libraries use LCC because the Library of Congress' shared bibliographic records with the LCC call numbers reflect the collecting interests of academic libraries. LCC is more hospitable to change than DDC whoese phoenix schedules have encountered resistance throughout the world. Classification currently receives less attention than subject headings since United States librarians place great hope in the computer to resolve subject heading problems while remaining conservative about classification

0.0042483797 = product of:
  0.021241898 = sum of:
    0.021241898 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021241898 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2008 17:56:19