Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.056243166 = product of:
  0.11248633 = sum of:
    0.11248633 = sum of:
      0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07010528 = score(doc=125,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reclassification was a popular trend during the 1960s and 1970s for many academic libraries wanting to change from Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) to Library of Congress (LC) Classification. In 2002, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale's Morris Library changed from DDC to LC. If one academic library recently converted, might other DDC academic libraries consider switching, too? Conversely, for those academic libraries that remain with DDC, what are the reasons they continue with it? A survey of thirty-four DDC academic libraries in the United States and Canada determined what factors influence these libraries to continue using DDC, and if reclassification is something they have considered or are considering. The survey also investigated whether patrons of these DDC libraries prefer LC and if their preference influences the library's decision to reclassify. Results from the survey indicate that the issue of reclassification is being considered by some of these libraries even though, overall, they are satisfied with DDC. The study was unable to determine if patrons' preference for a classification scheme influenced a library's decision to reclassify.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.051622465 = product of:
  0.10324493 = sum of:
    0.10324493 = sum of:
      0.04673685 = weight(_text_:classification in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04673685 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
      0.056508083 = weight(_text_:22 in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056508083 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Dissatisfied with the national public library classification SISO some public libraries experiment with a own, more user friendly system

Source

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

0.051547006 = product of:
  0.10309401 = sum of:
    0.10309401 = sum of:
      0.060712952 = weight(_text_:classification in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060712952 = score(doc=1858,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = 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)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The verification of the functionality of the Philosophy classification schema adopted at the Library of the Scuola Normale Superiore needs to take into account the context: the Library is both a special and a multidisciplinary library; its collections reflect the history of the SNS. The philosophy collection has a specialized and selective nature, as do others within the same Library; the Library is open shelves, and classification is used as a shelving and location device. Bearing in mind the above conditions, the second part of this paper examines the strengths and weaknesses of the schema in order to highlight its suitability to match a coherent classification of documents with the effective fruition by the users.

Date

9. 1.2010 14:22:20

0.028916951 = product of:
  0.057833903 = sum of:
    0.057833903 = product of:
      0.115667805 = sum of:
        0.115667805 = weight(_text_:classification in 5548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.115667805 = score(doc=5548,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.69665456 = fieldWeight in 5548, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A review of the current use of reader-interest classification since 1980 as an alternative arrangement of bookstock to traditional classification. Reader-interest classification is known by a variety of names and used in many countries. With a current trend to make libraries more accessible and user-friendly, librarians are experimenting with reader-interest classification. The paper discusses the reasons for using it, principles, catalog aspects, what it brings together and separates, implementation, arrangement and presentation of the bookstock, the kind and size of library where it is in use and the outlook for its continued use. Recent studies and surveys are also considered.

Object

Reader interest classification

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.19, nos.3/4

Source

Classification: options and opportunities. Ed.: A.R. Thomas

0.023368426 = product of:
  0.04673685 = sum of:
    0.04673685 = product of:
      0.0934737 = sum of:
        0.0934737 = weight(_text_:classification in 557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0934737 = score(doc=557,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 557, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=557)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Reader interest classification

0.023368426 = product of:
  0.04673685 = sum of:
    0.04673685 = product of:
      0.0934737 = sum of:
        0.0934737 = weight(_text_:classification in 5263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0934737 = score(doc=5263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 5263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Reader interest classification

0.020447372 = product of:
  0.040894743 = sum of:
    0.040894743 = product of:
      0.081789486 = sum of:
        0.081789486 = weight(_text_:classification in 3498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789486 = score(doc=3498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 3498, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.020447372 = product of:
  0.040894743 = sum of:
    0.040894743 = product of:
      0.081789486 = sum of:
        0.081789486 = weight(_text_:classification in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789486 = score(doc=4485,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Patrons often browse through books organized by a library classification system, looking for books to use and possibly circulate. This research is an examination of the clustering of similar books provided by a classification system and ways in which the books that patrons circulate are clustered. Measures of classification system performance are suggested and used to evaluate two test collections. Regression formulas are derived describing the relationships among the number of areas in which books were found (the number of stops a patron makes when browsing), the distances across a cluster, and the average number of books a patron circulates. Patrons were found usually to make more stops than there were books found at their average stop. Consequences for full-text document systems and online catalogs are suggested

0.020447372 = product of:
  0.040894743 = sum of:
    0.040894743 = product of:
      0.081789486 = sum of:
        0.081789486 = weight(_text_:classification in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789486 = score(doc=1973,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the recent years, several libraries in the United States have been experimenting with Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), the classification system of the book industry, as an alternative to the Dewey Decimal Classification. Although rarely discussed, these cases of implementation of BISAC arguably resemble other past cases of replacement of traditional classifications that received the name of reader-interest classifications. In this article, a comparison of the BISAC cases to the previous cases of reader-interest classifications is taken in order to determine if the current application of BISAC to libraries is susceptible to the same problems, dangers, and ends as occurred in the past.

Object

Reader interest classification

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.2, S.137-155

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=780,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the last century, the concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a well-established presence and commonly-agreed characteristics in the literature and other classification discourses. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects, and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. However, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day, such as those of implementation of BISAC in public libraries, the use of reader-interest classification-related terms and references have drastically declined since 1995. The present work attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

Object

Reader interest classification

0.016523972 = product of:
  0.033047944 = sum of:
    0.033047944 = product of:
      0.06609589 = sum of:
        0.06609589 = weight(_text_:classification in 2147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06609589 = score(doc=2147,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 2147, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Thurgau Canton Library of the town of Frauenfeld/Switzerland contributes an insight into the way the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) was introduced there, as well as into the experience made with Dewey in everyday library practice for approx. five years. In the Canton Library the DDC is used not only for subject analysis but also for shelf arrangement of 13,000 media presently.

Source

New pespectives on subject indexing and classification: essays in honour of Magda Heiner-Freiling. Red.: K. Knull-Schlomann, u.a

0.015178238 = product of:
  0.030356476 = sum of:
    0.030356476 = product of:
      0.060712952 = sum of:
        0.060712952 = weight(_text_:classification in 787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060712952 = score(doc=787,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 787, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents a new idea on shelving printed books and finding books in libraries. The author advocates that traditional book classification number (TBCN) systems should be replaced by a better indexing method for books in libraries. The author proposes a new way of seeking books for library users wishing to locate them called a 'dynamic book subject number' (DBSN) system. The new system combines new indexing rules and automated system technology to create settings in which a book's 'subject number' can change rather than having a particular permanent classification number assigned to it. The new way encourages library users to seek books through a user-friendly cataloging system by choosing subjects from the embedded database. The database contains thousands of subjects with their corresponding Arabic codes. For printed books, the DBSN ushers in a new era in the relationship between library users and the books.

0.014605265 = product of:
  0.02921053 = sum of:
    0.02921053 = product of:
      0.05842106 = sum of:
        0.05842106 = weight(_text_:classification in 3270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05842106 = score(doc=3270,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3270, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Philosophy Library at the University of Milan was born in the fifties by the merger of the two Institutes of Philosophy and the History of Philosophy. Once the restoration had been completed, it was necessary to devise a suitable classification system in order to arrange the books and to meet the new research needs of the Institutes. The project was untrusted to Prof. Corrado Mangione and Prof. Maria Assunta del Torre, with the theoretical contribution of Giuliana Sapori, chief Director of Central Library of the Faculty of Laws and Humanities. The model had been conceived as completely anew, without any reference toother existing classification systems. The inspiring principles were from one hand the choice for an open shelving system, from the other one the idea that the orientation criteria and the book search had to be user-friendly for everyone. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the making-up of the call number as applied to each section of the collection, and how the scheme has been developed over the past fifty years. Points of strenght and weakness of the scheme are also discussed at the light of the technological innovations which have gradually affected the whole of the library activities, notably with the introduction of the electronic catalogue. The original classification scheme has maintened its coherence and functionality over time, in spite of the expansion of the collection and the automation of all stages of the classification process. This is the main reason to keep using it in the future.

0.014458476 = product of:
  0.028916951 = sum of:
    0.028916951 = product of:
      0.057833903 = sum of:
        0.057833903 = weight(_text_:classification in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057833903 = score(doc=3667,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There seems to be general agreement in the library community that a predictably ordered system of classification, leading to easy browsability of a library collection either in the stacks or in an OPAC, is an indispensible requirement for the kind of access patrons have come to expect, and for the reasonable success of the searching strategies they normally use. In this vein, examines the intrinsic value of browsing. In addition, with the help of some rough data compiled during a test conducted at Cornell University in the spring of 1994, estimates the cost of maintaining the collocative and alphabetical integrity of shelflist files for works by or about individual literary authors

0.014458476 = product of:
  0.028916951 = sum of:
    0.028916951 = product of:
      0.057833903 = sum of:
        0.057833903 = weight(_text_:classification in 1745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057833903 = score(doc=1745,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 1745, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Investigates what effect the shelf classification of fiction had on the way that library users in the 2 branch libraries of Kajanni, Finland, use the library's stock of fiction and how they loan fiction. In 1 library the fiction stock was divided in 11 shelf categories, based on genres of fiction - in the other no changes were made. The books were also indexed and classified in the library's database. The project lasted for 3 years and the results were gathered by interviewing clients and making statistical analysis on loans in both libraries

0.014458476 = product of:
  0.028916951 = sum of:
    0.028916951 = product of:
      0.057833903 = sum of:
        0.057833903 = weight(_text_:classification in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057833903 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 5(1984) no.2, S.45-50

0.014458476 = product of:
  0.028916951 = sum of:
    0.028916951 = product of:
      0.057833903 = sum of:
        0.057833903 = weight(_text_:classification in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057833903 = score(doc=510,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Library patrons have innate expectations about how documents should be arranged. Useful classification schemes are those which conform to these expectations and are thereby psychologically comfortable. All schemes necessarily deviate from these expectations, but not to the same degree. The greater the divergence from this mental standard with a scheme, the greater the psychological discomfort the patron will experience and the less useful the patron will find it. Using as an example the discipline of anthropology, this article develops a measure of the deviation of library classifications from collocation in mental space

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 13(1991) no.2, S.23-43

0.014458476 = product of:
  0.028916951 = sum of:
    0.028916951 = product of:
      0.057833903 = sum of:
        0.057833903 = weight(_text_:classification in 4167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057833903 = score(doc=4167,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 4167, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article examines whether academic libraries are still reclassifying materials, how they are doing so, and if the acquisition of electronic materials has an impact on reclassification efforts. An online survey was sent to the heads of cataloging units at libraries belonging to the Association of Research Libraries to answer these questions. Almost one-third of libraries are currently involved in reclassification projects. Most respondents reported they do not believe that purchasing e-books has affected their decisions about reclassification. The article also examines the faceted search capability of next-generation catalogs and their possible impact on patrons' use of classification.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 49(2011) no.1, S.14-32

0.014127021 = product of:
  0.028254041 = sum of:
    0.028254041 = product of:
      0.056508083 = sum of:
        0.056508083 = weight(_text_:22 in 31) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056508083 = score(doc=31,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 31, 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=31)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Scandinavian public library quarterly. 25(1992) no.4, S.22-24,29