Search (135 results, page 1 of 7)

0.14039984 = product of:
  0.23399973 = sum of:
    0.018382076 = weight(_text_:of in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018382076 = score(doc=5497,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
    0.12720807 = weight(_text_:subject in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12720807 = score(doc=5497,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.73184985 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
    0.08840958 = product of:
      0.17681916 = sum of:
        0.17681916 = weight(_text_:headings in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17681916 = score(doc=5497,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.75018746 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The principle of specificity for subject headings provides a clear advantage to many researchers for the precision it brings to subject searching. However, for some researchers very specific subject headings hinder an efficient and comprehensive search. An appropriate broader heading, especially when made narrower in scope by the addition of subheadings, can benefit researchers by providing generic access to their topic. Assigning both specific and generic subject headings to a work would enhance the subject accessibility for the diverse approaches and research needs of different catalog users. However, it can be difficult for catalogers to assign broader terms consistently to different works and without consistency the gathering function of those terms may not be realized.

0.12616493 = product of:
  0.21027488 = sum of:
    0.020551786 = weight(_text_:of in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551786 = score(doc=5612,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
    0.12720807 = weight(_text_:subject in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12720807 = score(doc=5612,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.73184985 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
    0.06251501 = product of:
      0.12503003 = sum of:
        0.12503003 = weight(_text_:headings in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12503003 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.5304626 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

0.12080746 = product of:
  0.15100932 = sum of:
    0.040808007 = weight(_text_:list in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040808007 = score(doc=1858,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.16198929 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.0185687 = weight(_text_:of in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0185687 = score(doc=1858,freq=100.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          10.0 = tf(freq=100.0), with freq of:
            100.0 = termFreq=100.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.053203873 = weight(_text_:subject in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053203873 = score(doc=1858,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.306091 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.03842873 = sum of:
      0.02525988 = weight(_text_:headings in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02525988 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04859849 = queryNorm
          0.107169636 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.013168849 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013168849 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04859849 = queryNorm
          0.07738023 = 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)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Rez. in JASIST 54(2003) no.4, S.356-357 (S.J. Lincicum): "Reliance upon shared cataloging in academic libraries in the United States has been driven largely by the need to reduce the expense of cataloging operations without muck regard for the Impact that this approach might have an the quality of the records included in local catalogs. In recent years, ever increasing pressures have prompted libraries to adopt practices such as "rapid" copy cataloging that purposely reduce the scrutiny applied to bibliographic records downloaded from shared databases, possibly increasing the number of errors that slip through unnoticed. Errors in bibliographic records can lead to serious problems for library catalog users. If the data contained in bibliographic records is inaccurate, users will have difficulty discovering and recognizing resources in a library's collection that are relevant to their needs. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand the extent and nature of errors that occur in the records found in large shared bibliographic databases, such as OCLC WorldCat, to develop cataloging practices optimized for the shared cataloging environment. Although this monograph raises a few legitimate concerns about recent trends in cataloging practice, it fails to provide the "detailed look" at misinformation in library catalogs arising from linguistic errors and mistakes in subject analysis promised by the publisher. A basic premise advanced throughout the text is that a certain amount of linguistic and subject knowledge is required to catalog library materials effectively. The author emphasizes repeatedly that most catalogers today are asked to catalog an increasingly diverse array of materials, and that they are often required to work in languages or subject areas of which they have little or no knowledge. He argues that the records contributed to shared databases are increasingly being created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject expertise. This adversely affects the quality of individual library catalogs because errors often go uncorrected as records are downloaded from shared databases to local catalogs by copy catalogers who possess even less knowledge. Calling misinformation an "evil phenomenon," Bade states that his main goal is to discuss, "two fundamental types of misinformation found in bibliographic and authority records in library catalogs: that arising from linguistic errors, and that caused by errors in subject analysis, including missing or wrong subject headings" (p. 2). After a superficial discussion of "other" types of errors that can occur in bibliographic records, such as typographical errors and errors in the application of descriptive cataloging rules, Bade begins his discussion of linguistic errors. He asserts that sharing bibliographic records created by catalogers with inadequate linguistic or subject knowledge has, "disastrous effects an the library community" (p. 6). To support this bold assertion, Bade provides as evidence little more than a laundry list of errors that he has personally observed in bibliographic records over the years. When he eventually cites several studies that have addressed the availability and quality of records available for materials in languages other than English, he fails to describe the findings of these studies in any detail, let alone relate the findings to his own observations in a meaningful way. Bade claims that a lack of linguistic expertise among catalogers is the "primary source for linguistic misinformation in our databases" (p. 10), but he neither cites substantive data from existing studies nor provides any new data regarding the overall level of linguistic knowledge among catalogers to support this claim. The section concludes with a brief list of eight sensible, if unoriginal, suggestions for coping with the challenge of cataloging materials in unfamiliar languages.
Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.
Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.11328885 = product of:
  0.18881474 = sum of:
    0.027290303 = weight(_text_:of in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027290303 = score(doc=299,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
    0.12363462 = weight(_text_:subject in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12363462 = score(doc=299,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.7112912 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
    0.03788982 = product of:
      0.07577964 = sum of:
        0.07577964 = weight(_text_:headings in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07577964 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to explain the character and causes of obsolescence in assigned subject descriptors. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis with examples and reference to existing literature. Findings - Subject description comes in two forms: assigning the name or code of a subject to a document and assigning a document to a named subject category. Each method associates a document with the name of a subject. This naming activity is the site of tensions between the procedural need of information systems for stable records and the inherent multiplicity and instability of linguistic expressions. As languages change, previously assigned subject descriptions become obsolescent. The issues, tensions, and compromises involved are introduced. Originality/value - Drawing on the work of Robert Fairthorne and others, an explanation of the unavoidable obsolescence of assigned subject headings is presented. The discussion relates to libraries, but the same issues arise in any context in which subject description is expected to remain useful for an extended period of time.

Source

Journal of documentation. 68(2012) no.2, S.154-161

0.112163395 = product of:
  0.18693899 = sum of:
    0.020760437 = weight(_text_:of in 5740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020760437 = score(doc=5740,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5740, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5740)
    0.10302885 = weight(_text_:subject in 5740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10302885 = score(doc=5740,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5927426 = fieldWeight in 5740, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5740)
    0.0631497 = product of:
      0.1262994 = sum of:
        0.1262994 = weight(_text_:headings in 5740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1262994 = score(doc=5740,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.5358482 = fieldWeight in 5740, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5740)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This guide, for beginning catalogers with humanities or social sciences backgrounds, provides assistance in subject analysis (based on Library of Congress Subject Headings) of theses and dissertations (T/Ds) that are produced by graduate students in university departments in the hard sciences (physical sciences and engineering). It is aimed at those who have had little or no experience in cataloging, especially of this type of material, and for those who desire to supplement local mentoring resources for subject analysis in the hard sciences. Theses and dissertations from these departments present a special challenge because they are the results of current research representing specific new concepts with which the cataloger may not be familiar. In fact, subject headings often have not yet been created for the specific concept(s) being researched. Additionally, T/D authors often use jargon/terminology specific to their department. Catalogers often have many other duties in addition to subject analysis of T/Ds in the hard sciences, yet they desire to provide optimal access through accurate, thorough subject analysis. Tips are provided for determining the content of the T/D, strategic searches on WorldCat for possible subject headings, evaluating the relevancy of these subject headings for final selection, and selecting appropriate subdivisions where needed. Lists of basic reference resources are also provided.

0.11080288 = product of:
  0.18467146 = sum of:
    0.02599618 = weight(_text_:of in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02599618 = score(doc=3633,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
    0.09616026 = weight(_text_:subject in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09616026 = score(doc=3633,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
    0.06251501 = product of:
      0.12503003 = sum of:
        0.12503003 = weight(_text_:headings in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12503003 = score(doc=3633,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.5304626 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Comprehensiveness and consistency in newspaper indexing depend on the effectiveness of subject analysis of the news items. Discusses indexing skills required in order to identify indexable concepts. Describes practical aspects of conceptual analysis, crystalises criteria and methods for the indexing of news stories, and eludicates reasons form providing multiple subject-entries for certain news items. Suggests rules for news analysis and speedy and accurate allocation of subject headings, and illustrates the technique of dealing with complex and diversified news headings reported at intervals. As the headlines do not always indicate the real subject of a news story, the identification of indexable concepts can become arduous and cumbersome. Discusses the methods, skills and capability needed to tackle such problems

0.10871318 = product of:
  0.18118863 = sum of:
    0.02251335 = weight(_text_:of in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02251335 = score(doc=5481,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
    0.09616026 = weight(_text_:subject in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09616026 = score(doc=5481,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
    0.06251501 = product of:
      0.12503003 = sum of:
        0.12503003 = weight(_text_:headings in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12503003 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.5304626 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This article describes multiple experiments in text mining at Northern Illinois University that were undertaken to improve the efficiency and accuracy of cataloging. It focuses narrowly on subject analysis of dime novels, a format of inexpensive fiction that was popular in the United States between 1860 and 1915. NIU holds more than 55,000 dime novels in its collections, which it is in the process of comprehensively digitizing. Classification, keyword extraction, named-entity recognition, clustering, and topic modeling are discussed as means of assigning subject headings to improve their discoverability by researchers and to increase the productivity of digitization workflows.

0.10403519 = product of:
  0.17339198 = sum of:
    0.100994654 = weight(_text_:list in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100994654 = score(doc=904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.40090302 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
    0.024317201 = weight(_text_:of in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024317201 = score(doc=904,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 904, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=904)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Examines Panofsky's and Barthes's theories of image analysis and reports on a study of criteria for analysis and indexing of images and the different types of user queries used in 15 Danish newspaper image archives. A structured interview method and observation and various categories for subject analysis were used. The results identify a list of the minimum number of elements and led to user typology of 5 categories. The requirement for retrieval may involve combining images in a more visual way with text-based image retrieval

0.101307 = product of:
  0.16884498 = sum of:
    0.02121225 = weight(_text_:of in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02121225 = score(doc=2293,freq=58.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27912235 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
            58.0 = termFreq=58.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.07429516 = weight(_text_:subject in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07429516 = score(doc=2293,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4274328 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.07333757 = sum of:
      0.053584296 = weight(_text_:headings in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053584296 = score(doc=2293,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04859849 = queryNorm
          0.22734113 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.019753272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019753272 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04859849 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, 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=2293)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...
This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

0.1004091 = product of:
  0.16734849 = sum of:
    0.018193537 = weight(_text_:of in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018193537 = score(doc=466,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.07770923 = weight(_text_:subject in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07770923 = score(doc=466,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.071445726 = product of:
      0.14289145 = sum of:
        0.14289145 = weight(_text_:headings in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14289145 = score(doc=466,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.606243 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The number of subject headings for any individual bibliographic record is discussed. Four policy proposals are presented: how many different persons, places, and organisations should be used; how many uses of the same person, place, organisation, or topic should be allowed; an overall policy on secondary headings; how many subjects should be as a general policy.

0.09830841 = product of:
  0.16384734 = sum of:
    0.023670541 = weight(_text_:of in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023670541 = score(doc=4702,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
    0.10860195 = weight(_text_:subject in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10860195 = score(doc=4702,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.6248056 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
    0.03157485 = product of:
      0.0631497 = sum of:
        0.0631497 = weight(_text_:headings in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0631497 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.

Source

Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.6, S.713-734

0.07467527 = product of:
  0.12445878 = sum of:
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=6525,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 6525, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6525)
    0.082423076 = weight(_text_:subject in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082423076 = score(doc=6525,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 6525, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6525)
    0.019753272 = product of:
      0.039506543 = sum of:
        0.039506543 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039506543 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6525, 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=6525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Examines the goals of bibliographic control, subject analysis and their relationship for audiovisual materials in general and multipart videotape recordings in particular. Concludes that intellectual access to multipart works is not adequately provided for when these materials are catalogues in collective set records. An alternative is to catalogue the parts separately. This method increases intellectual access by providing more detailed descriptive notes and subject analysis. As evidenced by the large number of records in the national database for parts of multipart videos, cataloguers have made the intellectual content of multipart videos more accessible by cataloguing the parts separately rather than collectively. This reverses the traditional cataloguing process to begin with subject analysis, resulting in the intellectual content of these materials driving the bibliographic description. Suggests ways of determining when multipart videos are best catalogued as sets or separately

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.5-18

0.063919686 = product of:
  0.15979922 = sum of:
    0.029476898 = weight(_text_:of in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029476898 = score(doc=2247,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
    0.13032232 = weight(_text_:subject in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13032232 = score(doc=2247,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.7497667 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical investigation of the concept of 'subject' or 'subject matter' in library and information science. Most conceptions of 'subject' in the literature are not explicit but implicit. Various indexing and classification theories, including automatic indexing and citation indexing, have their own more or less implicit concepts of subject. This fact puts the emphasis on making the implicit theorie of 'subject matter' explicit as the first step. ... The different conceptions of 'subject' can therefore be classified into epistemological positions, e.g. 'subjective idealism' (or the empiric/positivistic viewpoint), 'objective idealism' (the rationalistic viewpoint), 'pragmatism' and 'materialism/realism'. The third and final step is to propose a new theory of subject matter based on an explicit theory of knowledge. In this article this is done from the point of view of a realistic/materialistic epistemology. From this standpoint the subject of a document is defined as the epistemological potentials of that document

Footnote

Ergänzung zu Langridge, D.W.: Subject analysis

Source

Journal of documentation. 48(1992), S.172-200

0.06337852 = product of:
  0.10563086 = sum of:
    0.018936433 = weight(_text_:of in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018936433 = score(doc=2653,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
    0.06143454 = weight(_text_:subject in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06143454 = score(doc=2653,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
    0.02525988 = product of:
      0.05051976 = sum of:
        0.05051976 = weight(_text_:headings in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05051976 = score(doc=2653,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.21433927 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The paper demonstrates that indexing is a complex phenomenon and presents a domain centered approach to indexing. The indexing process is analysed using the Means-Ends Analysis, a tool developed for the Cognitive Work Analysis framework. A Means-Ends Analysis of indexing provides a holistic understanding of indexing and Shows the importance of understanding the users' activities when indexing. The paper presents a domain-centered approach to indexing that includes an analysis of the users' activities and the paper outlines that approach to indexing.

Content

1. Introduction The document at hand is often regarded as the most important entity for analysis in the indexing situation. The indexer's focus is directed to the "entity and its faithful description" (Soergel, 1985, 227) and the indexer is advised to "stick to the text and the author's claims" (Lancaster, 2003, 37). The indexer's aim is to establish the subject matter based an an analysis of the document with the goal of representing the document as truthfully as possible and to ensure the subject representation's validity by remaining neutral and objective. To help indexers with their task they are guided towards particular and important attributes of the document that could help them determine the document's subject matter. The exact attributes the indexer is recommended to examine varies, but typical examples are: the title, the abstract, the table of contents, chapter headings, chapter subheadings, preface, introduction, foreword, the text itself, bibliographical references, index entries, illustrations, diagrams, and tables and their captions. The exact recommendations vary according to the type of document that is being indexed (monographs vs. periodical articles, for instance). It is clear that indexers should provide faithful descriptions, that indexers should represent the author's claims, and that the document's attributes are helpful points of analysis. However, indexers need much more guidance when determining the subject than simply the documents themselves. One approach that could be taken to handle the Situation is a useroriented approach in which it is argued that the indexer should ask, "how should I make this document ... visible to potential users? What terms should I use to convey its knowledge to those interested?" (Albrechtsen, 1993, 222). The basic idea is that indexers need to have the users' information needs and terminology in mind when determining the subject matter of documents as well as when selecting index terms.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.061731026 = product of:
  0.10288504 = sum of:
    0.022741921 = weight(_text_:of in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022741921 = score(doc=2069,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
    0.048568267 = weight(_text_:subject in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048568267 = score(doc=2069,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
    0.03157485 = product of:
      0.0631497 = sum of:
        0.0631497 = weight(_text_:headings in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0631497 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.55-63

0.057550866 = product of:
  0.14387716 = sum of:
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 2199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=2199,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 2199, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2199)
    0.12286908 = weight(_text_:subject in 2199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12286908 = score(doc=2199,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.7068869 = fieldWeight in 2199, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2199)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Integration of archival materials catalogued in the USMARC AMC format into online catalogues has given a new urgency to the need for direct subject access. Offers a broad definition of the concepts to be considered under the subject access heading, including not only topical subjects but also proper names, forms of material, time periods, geographic places, occupations, and functions. It is both necessary and possible to provide more consistent subject access to archives and manuscripts than currently is being achieved. Describes current efforts that are under way in the profession to address this need

0.05532943 = product of:
  0.13832358 = sum of:
    0.020551786 = weight(_text_:of in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551786 = score(doc=2021,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
    0.11777179 = weight(_text_:subject in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11777179 = score(doc=2021,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.6775613 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Subject analysis is the basis of all classifying and indexing techniques and is equally applicable to automatic and manual indexing systems. This book discusses subject analysis as an activity in its own right, independent of any indexing language. It examines the theoretical basis of subject analysis using the concepts of forms of knowledge as applicable to classification schemes.

LCSH

Subject cataloging

Subject

Subject cataloging

0.05501447 = product of:
  0.13753617 = sum of:
    0.0185687 = weight(_text_:of in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0185687 = score(doc=607,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
    0.11896747 = weight(_text_:subject in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11896747 = score(doc=607,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.68444026 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Discusses subject analysis as an important stage in the indexing process and observes confusions that can occur in the meaning of the term. Considers questions and difficulties about subject analysis and the concept of aboutness

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Subject analysis: concepts

0.05306784 = product of:
  0.1326696 = sum of:
    0.023634095 = weight(_text_:of in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023634095 = score(doc=6472,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
    0.1090355 = weight(_text_:subject in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1090355 = score(doc=6472,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.6272999 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Studies of indexing neglect the first stage of the process, that is, subject analysis. In this study, novice indexers were asked to analyse three short, popular journal articles; to express the general subject as well as the primary and secondary topics in natural laguage statements; to state what influenced the analysis and to comment on the ease or difficulty of this process. The factors which influenced the process were: the subject discipline concerned, factual vs. subjective nature of the text, complexity of the subject, clarity of text, possible support offered by bibliographic apparatus such as title, etc. The findings showed that with the social science and science texts, the general subject could be determined with ease, while this was more difficult with the humanities text. Clear evidence emerged of the importance of bibliographical apparatus in defining the general subject. There was varying difficulty in determining the primary and secondarx topics

Source

Journal of information science. 19(1993), S.439-454

0.05200952 = product of:
  0.13002379 = sum of:
    0.02251335 = weight(_text_:of in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02251335 = score(doc=3418,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
    0.10751045 = weight(_text_:subject in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10751045 = score(doc=3418,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.61852604 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between documentoriented views versus request-oriented views. The documentoriented view conceives subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policybased view) understands subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the document's informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the document's potentials of informing users and advancing the development of knowledge.