Svenonius, E.; McGarry, D.: Objectivity in evaluating subject heading assignment (1993)
0.01
0.008633038 = product of:
0.034532152 = sum of:
0.034532152 = product of:
0.069064304 = sum of:
0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069064304 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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
