Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03717283 = product of:
  0.07434566 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=340,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 340, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=340)
    0.041859288 = product of:
      0.083718576 = sum of:
        0.083718576 = weight(_text_:project in 340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083718576 = score(doc=340,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.39571697 = fieldWeight in 340, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

For a variety of reasons, reclassification was a popular project in libraries in the 1960s. Although such projects have faded from the limelight, some of the reasons for doing them remain valid today, i.e., a need to cut processing costs, participation in cooperative ventures, the inconvenience caused by working with a collection split between two classification systems, and continuing changes in the Dewey schedules. This article compares the steps needed for reclassifying in a manual environment with those required when the library has an in-house computer system. The comparison shows how using the latter makes a reclassification project more feasible than it would be in a totally manual library. The article also discusses various issues associated with reclassification in an automated environment such as the problem posed by a frozen public catalog and the combining of reclassification and conversion projects.

0.015314223 = product of:
  0.061256893 = sum of:
    0.061256893 = weight(_text_:library in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061256893 = score(doc=3326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Champaign, Ill. : Univ. of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 3498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=3498,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 3498, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3498)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library Science: occasional papers; no.146

0.013399946 = product of:
  0.053599782 = sum of:
    0.053599782 = weight(_text_:library in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053599782 = score(doc=339,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In reclassifying a Library and Information Science library from DDC to LC, an attempt was made to concentrate books with related subject headings on the shelf for maximum shelf retrieval even in cases where the Subject Authorities or C.I.P. assign them varying numbers. Most of the shelf concentration was achieved either by selecting a single number for a given heading and then classifying all books with the heading in that number or by replacing the standard LC number for a heading with one which placed it together with related books on the shelf.

0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 1774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=1774,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 1774, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1774)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: ASTIN, J.: Cheshire: Alternative arrangement and beyond; READER, D.: User orientation in a Hertfordshire branch; CHANDLER, D.: Self-service-libraries: providing for the smaller community in Cambridgeshire; BETTS, D.: Reader interest categories in Surrey; DONBROSKI, L.: Categorisation at East Sussex County Library; McCARTHY, A.: Burning issues: stock appeal in Sunderland; MORSON, I. u. M. PERRY: Two-tier and total: stock arrangement in Brent