Svenonius, E.; McGarry, D.: Objectivity in evaluating subject heading assignment (1993)
0.02
0.018507326 = product of:
0.09253663 = sum of:
0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09253663 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
0.051222645 = queryNorm
0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
