-
Weimer, K.H.: ¬The nexus of subject analysis and bibliographic description : the case of multipart videos (1996)
0.06
0.05562539 = product of:
0.1557511 = sum of:
0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05092278 = score(doc=6525,freq=8.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 6525, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6525)
0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05224943 = score(doc=6525,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 6525, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6525)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 6525, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6525)
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 6525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=6525,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
- 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
-
Langridge, D.W.: Subject analysis : principles and procedures (1989)
0.05
0.053599108 = product of:
0.18759687 = sum of:
0.07276198 = weight(_text_:subject in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07276198 = score(doc=2021,freq=12.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04079328 = score(doc=2021,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
0.03324832 = product of:
0.06649664 = sum of:
0.06649664 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06649664 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.41386467 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04079328 = weight(_text_:classification in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04079328 = score(doc=2021,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- 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
Classification / Books
- Subject
- Subject cataloging
Classification / Books
-
Studwell, W.E.: Subject suggestions 6 : some concerns relating to quantity of subjects (1990)
0.04
0.040590074 = product of:
0.14206526 = sum of:
0.048010457 = weight(_text_:subject in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048010457 = score(doc=466,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 466, 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=466)
0.04022163 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04022163 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026916584 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 466, 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=466)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- 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.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 10(1990) no.4, S.99-104
-
Beghtol, C.: Bibliographic classification theory and text linguistics : aboutness, analysis, intertextuality and the cognitive act of classifying documents (1986)
0.04
0.040309202 = product of:
0.1881096 = sum of:
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 1346, 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=1346)
0.08044326 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08044326 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 1346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1346)
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 1346, 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=1346)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
-
Fairthorne, R.A.: Temporal structure in bibliographic classification (1985)
0.04
0.0367672 = product of:
0.12868519 = sum of:
0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02546139 = score(doc=3651,freq=8.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
0.030281154 = weight(_text_:classification in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030281154 = score(doc=3651,freq=18.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3166773 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042661484 = score(doc=3651,freq=16.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
0.030281154 = weight(_text_:classification in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030281154 = score(doc=3651,freq=18.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3166773 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.
The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.
- Footnote
- Original in: Ottawa Conference on the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Ottawa, 1971. Ed.: Jerzy A Wojceichowski. Pullach: Verlag Dokumentation 1974. S.404-412.
- Source
- Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
-
Pejtersen, A.M.: ¬A new approach to the classification of fiction (1982)
0.03
0.03406883 = product of:
0.15898788 = sum of:
0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 7240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042435654 = score(doc=7240,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 7240, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7240)
0.058276117 = weight(_text_:classification in 7240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058276117 = score(doc=7240,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6094458 = fieldWeight in 7240, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7240)
0.058276117 = weight(_text_:classification in 7240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058276117 = score(doc=7240,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.6094458 = fieldWeight in 7240, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7240)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Source
- Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed. I. Dahlberg
-
Bland, R.N.: ¬The concept of intellectual level in cataloging and classification (1983)
0.03
0.03034604 = product of:
0.14161485 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=321,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 321, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=321)
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=321,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 321, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=321)
0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053833168 = score(doc=321,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 321, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=321)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- This paper traces the history of the concept of intellectual level in cataloging and classification in the United States. Past cataloging codes, subject-heading practice, and classification systems have provided library users with little systematic information concerning the intellectual level or intended audience of works. Reasons for this omission are discussed, and arguments are developed to show that this kind of information would be a useful addition to the catalog record of the present and the future.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 4(1983) no.1, S.53-63
-
Chu, C.M.; O'Brien, A.: Subject analysis : the critical first stage in indexing (1993)
0.03
0.027309 = product of:
0.127442 = sum of:
0.067364514 = weight(_text_:subject in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067364514 = score(doc=6472,freq=14.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030166224 = score(doc=6472,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
0.029911257 = product of:
0.059822515 = sum of:
0.059822515 = weight(_text_:texts in 6472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059822515 = score(doc=6472,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.36342722 = fieldWeight in 6472, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6472)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Short, M.: Text mining and subject analysis for fiction; or, using machine learning and information extraction to assign subject headings to dime novels (2019)
0.03
0.027005369 = product of:
0.12602505 = sum of:
0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059409913 = score(doc=5481,freq=8.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5481, 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=5481)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 5481, 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=5481)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 57(2019) no.5, S.315-336
-
Svenonius, E.; McGarry, D.: Objectivity in evaluating subject heading assignment (1993)
0.03
0.02693485 = product of:
0.12569596 = sum of:
0.07859193 = weight(_text_:subject in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07859193 = score(doc=5612,freq=14.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5612,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 16(1993) no.2, S.5-40
-
Marshall, L.: Specific and generic subject headings : increasing subject access to library materials (2003)
0.03
0.02693485 = product of:
0.12569596 = sum of:
0.07859193 = weight(_text_:subject in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07859193 = score(doc=5497,freq=14.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5497,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5497,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) no.2, S.59-87
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The concept of 'subject' in information science (1992)
0.03
0.025905184 = product of:
0.120890856 = sum of:
0.08051598 = weight(_text_:subject in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08051598 = score(doc=2247,freq=20.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=2247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=2247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Naun, C.C.: Objectivity and subject access in the print library (2006)
0.02
0.021118827 = product of:
0.09855452 = sum of:
0.0514505 = weight(_text_:subject in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0514505 = score(doc=236,freq=6.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Librarians have inherited from the print environment a particular way of thinking about subject representation, one based on the conscious identification by librarians of appropriate subject classes and terminology. This conception has played a central role in shaping the profession's characteristic approach to upholding one of its core values: objectivity. It is argued that the social and technological roots of traditional indexing practice are closely intertwined. It is further argued that in traditional library practice objectivity is to be understood as impartiality, and reflects the mediating role that librarians have played in society. The case presented here is not a historical one based on empirical research, but rather a conceptual examination of practices that are already familiar to most librarians.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) no.2, S.83-94
-
Hoover, L.: ¬A beginners' guide for subject analysis of theses and dissertations in the hard sciences (2005)
0.02
0.020849831 = product of:
0.09729921 = sum of:
0.06365348 = weight(_text_:subject in 5740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06365348 = score(doc=5740,freq=18.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016822865 = score(doc=5740,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5740, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5740)
0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016822865 = score(doc=5740,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5740, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5740)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 41(2005) no.1, S.133-161
-
Shatford, S.: Analyzing the subject of a picture : a theoretical approach (1986)
0.02
0.020640023 = product of:
0.09632011 = sum of:
0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029704956 = score(doc=354,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 354, 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=354)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=354,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 354, 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=354)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=354,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 354, 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=354)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- This paper suggests a theoretical basis for identifying and classifying the kinds of subjects a picture may have, using previously developed principles of cataloging and classification, and concepts taken from the philosophy of art, from meaning in language, and from visual perception. The purpose of developing this theoretical basis is to provide the reader with a means for evaluating, adapting, and applying presently existing indexing languages, or for devising new languages for pictorial materials; this paper does not attempt to invent or prescribe a particular indexing language.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 6(1986) no.3, S.39-62
-
Holley, R.M.; Joudrey, D.N.: Aboutness and conceptual analysis : a review (2021)
0.02
0.020640023 = product of:
0.09632011 = sum of:
0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029704956 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 703, 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=703)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=703,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 703, 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=703)
0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033307575 = score(doc=703,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 703, 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=703)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of aboutness and conceptual analysis, essential concepts for LIS practitioners to understand. Aboutness refers to the subject matter and genre/form properties of a resource. It is identified during conceptual analysis, which yields an aboutness statement, a summary of a resource's aboutness. While few scholars have discussed the aboutness determination process in detail, the methods described by Patrick Wilson, D.W. Langridge, Arlene G. Taylor, and Daniel N. Joudrey provide exemplary frameworks for determining aboutness and are presented here. Discussions of how to construct an aboutness statement and the challenges associated with aboutness determination follow.
- Content
- Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1856992. Teil eines Themenheftes: Cataloging and Classification: Back to Basics
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.2/3, S.159-185
-
Sauperl, A.: Subject determination during the cataloging process : the development of a system based on theoretical principles (2002)
0.02
0.020625893 = product of:
0.07219062 = sum of:
0.045901176 = weight(_text_:subject in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045901176 = score(doc=2293,freq=26.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.01009372 = weight(_text_:classification in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01009372 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.10555911 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
0.01009372 = weight(_text_:classification in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01009372 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.10555911 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
0.0061020018 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0122040035 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- 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."
-
Beghtol, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval (1992)
0.02
0.019800773 = product of:
0.092403606 = sum of:
0.0380658 = weight(_text_:classification in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0380658 = score(doc=5830,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
0.0380658 = weight(_text_:classification in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0380658 = score(doc=5830,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
0.016272005 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03254401 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Date
- 5. 8.2006 13:22:08
- Source
- Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon
-
Pejtersen, A.M.: Design of a classification scheme for fiction based on an analysis of actual user-librarian communication, and use of the scheme for control of librarians' search strategies (1980)
0.02
0.018778171 = product of:
0.087631464 = sum of:
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
0.020340007 = product of:
0.040680014 = sum of:
0.040680014 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040680014 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Date
- 5. 8.2006 13:22:44
-
Diao, J.: Conceptualizations of catalogers' judgment through content analysis : a preliminary investigation (2018)
0.02
0.017571535 = product of:
0.082000494 = sum of:
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
0.034896467 = product of:
0.069792934 = sum of:
0.069792934 = weight(_text_:texts in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069792934 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.42399842 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Catalogers' judgment has been frequently mentioned, but rarely has been researched in formal studies. The purpose of this article is to investigate catalogers' judgment through an exploration of the texts collected in the database of Library and Information Science Source. Verbs, adjectives, and nouns intimately associated with catalogers' judgment were extracted, analyzed, and grouped into 16 categories, which lead to 5 conceptual descriptions. The results of this study provide cataloging professionals with an overall picture on aspects of catalogers' judgment, which may help library school students and graduates and novice catalogers to become independent and confident decision makers relating to cataloging work.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.4, S.298-316
