Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.09188387 = product of:
  0.18376774 = sum of:
    0.019779779 = weight(_text_:und in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019779779 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13453132 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
    0.16398796 = weight(_text_:headings in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16398796 = score(doc=2261,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.5571519 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The biomedical book collection in the Genetech Library and Information Services was first inventoried and cataloged in 1983 when it totaled about 2000 titles. Cataloging records were retrieved from the OCLC system and used as a basis for cataloging. A year of cataloging produced a list of 1900 subject terms. More than one term describing the same concept often appears on the list, and no hierarchical structure related the terms to one another. As the collection grew, the subject catalog became increasingly inconsistent. To bring consistency to subject cataloging, a thesaurus of biomedical terms was constructed using the list of subject headings as a basis. This thesaurus follows the broad categories of the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings and, with some exceptions, the Guidelines for the Establishment and Development of Monolingual Thesauri. It has enabled the cataloger in providing greater in-depth subject analysis of materials added to the collection and in consistently assigning subject headings to cataloging record.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.04782982 = product of:
  0.19131929 = sum of:
    0.19131929 = weight(_text_:headings in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19131929 = score(doc=10,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.6500105 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Explores the question of whether academic libraries keep up with the changes in the LCSH system. Analysis of the handling of 15 subject headings in 50 academic library catalogues available via the Internet found that libraries are not consistently maintaining subject authority control, or making syndetic references and scope notes in their catalogues. Discusses the results from the perspective of the libraries' performance, performance on the headings overall, performance on references, performance on the type of change made to the headings,a nd performance within 3 widely used onlien catalogue systems (DRA, INNOPAC and NOTIS). Discusses the implications of the findings in relationship to expressions of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of subject cataloguing expressed by discussion groups on the Internet

0.04463187 = product of:
  0.17852747 = sum of:
    0.17852747 = weight(_text_:headings in 2267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852747 = score(doc=2267,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.60655016 = fieldWeight in 2267, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2267)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Beginning with Cutter, theorists of subject headings have conceded that certain elements of systematic arrangement in the dictionary catalog are inevitable; yet the fact that no specific guidelines have ever been developed for the determination of the extent to which subject collocation at the expense of specific and direct entry should be allowed has resulted in the many irregularities and inconsistencies now existing in the LCSH

0.04099699 = product of:
  0.16398796 = sum of:
    0.16398796 = weight(_text_:headings in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16398796 = score(doc=2669,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.5571519 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A total of 16 classifiers made a subject analysis of a set of books such that some of the books were first classified by the UDC and then indexed with terms from the General Finnish Subject Headings while another set were processed in the opposite order. Finally books on the same subject were either classifies or indexed. The total number of books processed was 581. A comparison was made of the time required for processing in different situations and of the number of classes or subject headings used. The time figures were compared with corresponding data from the British Library (1972) and the Library of Congress (1990 and 1991). The author finds that the contents analysis requires one third, classification one third and indexing obe third of the time, if the document is both classified and indexed. There was a plausible correlation (o.51) between the length of experience in classification and the decrease in the time required for classing. The average number of UDC numbers was 4,3 and the average number of terms from the list of subject headings was 4,0

0.04099699 = product of:
  0.16398796 = sum of:
    0.16398796 = weight(_text_:headings in 4725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16398796 = score(doc=4725,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.5571519 = fieldWeight in 4725, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4725)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

When assigning subject headings or index terms to a document, how many terms or phrases should be used to represent the document? The contribution of an indexing phrase to locating and ordering documents can be compared to the contribution of a full-text query to finding documents. The length and number of phrases needed to equal the contribution of a full-text query is the subject of this paper. The appropriate number of phrases is determined in part by the length of the phrases. We suggest several rules that may be used to determine how many subject headings should be assigned, given index phrase lengths, and provide a general model for this process. A difference between characteristics of indexing "hard" science and "social" science literature is suggested.

0.039052885 = product of:
  0.15621154 = sum of:
    0.15621154 = weight(_text_:headings in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15621154 = score(doc=5611,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.5307314 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 3638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=3638,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 3638, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3638)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Studies the quality of subject indexing by Chemical Abstracts Indexing Service by confronting authors with the particular indexing terms attributed to their computer, for 270 articles published in 54 journals, 5 articles out of each journal. Responses (80%) indicate the superior quality of keywords, both as content descriptors and as retrieval tools. Author judgements on these 2 different aspects do not always converge, however. CAS's indexing policy to cover only 'new' aspects is reflected in author's judgements that index lists are somewhat incomplete, in particular in the case of thesaurus terms (index headings). The large effort expanded by CAS in maintaining and using a subject thesuaurs, in order to select valid index headings, as compared to quick and cheap keyword postings, does not lead to clear superior quality of thesaurus terms for document description nor in retrieval. Some 20% of papers were not placed in 'proper' CA main section, according to authors. As concerns the use of indexing data by third parties, in bibliometrics, users should be aware of the indexing policies behind the data, in order to prevent invalid interpretations

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=1263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article analyses how gender matters are handled in indexing languages. The examples chosen were the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the UNESCO Thesaurus (UT) and the European Women's Thesaurus (EWT). The study is based on an analysis of the entries Man/Men and Woman/Women, their subdivisions and established relationship appearing under these entries. Other headings or descriptors are also listed when they allude to men or women but the gender sense occupies only second or third place in the entry, in the shape of an adjective or a second noun. A lack of symmetry, in the treatment of gender is noted, with recommendations being made for equal status for men and women, which should, however, avoid unnecessary enumerations.

0.031559497 = product of:
  0.12623799 = sum of:
    0.12623799 = weight(_text_:headings in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12623799 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Indexing consistency between Library of Congress and British Library catalogers using the LCSH is compared.82 titles published in 1987 in the field of library and information science were identified for comparison, and for each title its LC subject headings, assigned by both LC and BL catalogers, were compared. By applying Hooper's 'consistency of a pair' equation, the average indexing consistency value was calculated for the 82 titles. The average indexing value between LC and BL catalogers is 16% for exact matches, and 36% for partial matches

0.02789492 = product of:
  0.11157968 = sum of:
    0.11157968 = weight(_text_:headings in 1383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11157968 = score(doc=1383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 1383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social tagging and controlled indexing both facilitate access to information resources. Given the increasing popularity of social tagging and the limitations of controlled indexing (primarily cost and scalability), it is reasonable to investigate to what degree social tagging could substitute for controlled indexing. In this study, we compared CiteULike tags to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms for 231,388 citations indexed in MEDLINE. In addition to descriptive analyses of the data sets, we present a paper-by-paper analysis of tags and MeSH terms: the number of common annotations, Jaccard similarity, and coverage ratio. In the analysis, we apply three increasingly progressive levels of text processing, ranging from normalization to stemming, to reduce the impact of lexical differences. Annotations of our corpus consisted of over 76,968 distinct tags and 21,129 distinct MeSH terms. The top 20 tags/MeSH terms showed little direct overlap. On a paper-by-paper basis, the number of common annotations ranged from 0.29 to 0.5 and the Jaccard similarity from 2.12% to 3.3% using increased levels of text processing. At most, 77,834 citations (33.6%) shared at least one annotation. Our results show that CiteULike tags and MeSH terms are quite distinct lexically, reflecting different viewpoints/processes between social tagging and controlled indexing.

0.023669623 = product of:
  0.09467849 = sum of:
    0.09467849 = weight(_text_:headings in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09467849 = score(doc=1053,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents the results of research into the automatic selection of Library of Congress Classification numbers based on the titles and subject headings in MARC records. The method used in this study was based on partial match retrieval techniques using various elements of new recors (i.e., those to be classified) as "queries", and a test database of classification clusters generated from previously classified MARC records. Sixty individual methods for automatic classification were tested on a set of 283 new records, using all combinations of four different partial match methods, five query types, and three representations of search terms. The results indicate that if the best method for a particular case can be determined, then up to 86% of the new records may be correctly classified. The single method with the best accuracy was able to select the correct classification for about 46% of the new records.

0.014742978 = product of:
  0.05897191 = sum of:
    0.05897191 = weight(_text_:und in 3526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05897191 = score(doc=3526,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13453132 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4383508 = fieldWeight in 3526, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3526)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Für eine fiktive Dokumentmenge wird eine Dokument-Wort-Matrix erstellt und mittels zweier Suchanfragen, ebenfalls als Matrix dargestellt, die Retrievalergebnisse ermittelt. Den Wörtern der Dokumentmenge werden in einem zweiten Schritt Aspekte zugeordnet und die Untersuchung erneut durchgeführt. Ein Vergleich bestätigt die schon früher gefundenen Vorteile des aspektischen Indexierung gegenüber anderen Methoden der Retrievalverbesserung, wie Trunkierung und Controlled Terms

Source

nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.8, S.459-462

0.012900106 = product of:
  0.051600423 = sum of:
    0.051600423 = weight(_text_:und in 5103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051600423 = score(doc=5103,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13453132 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.38355696 = fieldWeight in 5103, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5103)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Auf der Grundlage von vier Originaldokumenten, d.h. dokumentarischen Bezugseinheiten (DBEs), wird die Indexierung in vier biomedizinischen Online-Datenbanken (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS PREVIEWS, SCISEARCH) analysiert. Anhand von Beispielen werden inahltliche Erschließung, Indexierungstiefe, Indexierungsbreite, Indexierungskonsistenz, Präzision (durch syntaktisches Indexieren, Gewichtung, Proximity Operatoren) und Wiederauffindbarkeit (Recall) der in den Datenbanken gespeicherten Dokumentationseinheien (DBEs) untersucht. Die zeitaufwendigere intellektuelle Indexierung bei MEDLINE und EMBASE erweist sich als wesentlich präziser als die schneller verfügbare maschinelle Zuteilung von Deskriptoren in BIOSIS PREVIEWS und SCISEARCH. In Teil 1 der Untersuchung werden die Indexierungen in MEDLINE und EMBASE, in Teil 2 die Deskriptorenzuteilungen in BIOSIS PREVIEWS und SCISEARCH verglichen

0.010093827 = product of:
  0.040375307 = sum of:
    0.040375307 = weight(_text_:und in 3209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040375307 = score(doc=3209,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13453132 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.30011827 = fieldWeight in 3209, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3209)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In der globalen Online-Umgebung stellen viele bibliographische Dienstleistungen integrierten Zugang zu unterschiedlichen internetbasierten OPACs zur Verfügung. In solch einer Umgebung erwarten Benutzer mehr Übereinstimmungen innerhalb und zwischen den Systemen zu sehen. Zweck dieser Studie ist, die Indexierungskonsistenz zwischen Systemen zu untersuchen. Währenddessen werden einige Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen können, untersucht. Wichtigstes Ziel dieser Studie ist, die Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen herauszufinden, damit sinnvolle Vorschläge gemacht werden können, um die Indexierungskonsistenz zu verbessern. Eine Auswahl von 3307 Monographien wurde aus zwei chinesischen bibliographischen Katalogen gewählt. Nach Hooper's Formel war die durchschnittliche Indexierungskonsistenz für Indexterme 64,2% und für Klassennummern 61,6%. Nach Rolling's Formel war sie für Indexterme 70,7% und für Klassennummern 63,4%. Mehrere Faktoren, die die Indexierungskonsistenz beeinflussen, wurden untersucht: (1) Indexierungsbereite; (2) Indexierungsspezifizität; (3) Länge der Monographien; (4) Kategorie der Indexierungssprache; (5) Sachgebiet der Monographien; (6) Entwicklung von Disziplinen; (7) Struktur des Thesaurus oder der Klassifikation; (8) Erscheinungsjahr. Gründe für die Inkonsistenzen wurden ebenfalls analysiert. Die Analyse ergab: (1) den Indexieren mangelt es an Fachwissen, Vertrautheit mit den Indexierungssprachen und den Indexierungsregeln, so dass viele Inkonsistenzen verursacht wurden; (2) der Mangel an vereinheitlichten oder präzisen Regeln brachte ebenfalls Inkonsistenzen hervor; (3) verzögerte Überarbeitungen der Indexierungssprachen, Mangel an terminologischer Kontrolle, zu wenige Erläuterungen und "siehe auch" Referenzen, sowie die hohe semantische Freiheit bei der Auswahl von Deskriptoren oder Klassen, verursachten Inkonsistenzen.

Imprint

Berlin : Humboldt-Universität / Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

0.008241575 = product of:
  0.0329663 = sum of:
    0.0329663 = weight(_text_:und in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0329663 = score(doc=2274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13453132 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.24504554 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Ergebnisse: (1) Wenn SW frei gewählt, Recherche um so schwieriger, je mehr SW; (2) 'ältere' SW häufiger und weniger genau verwendet als 'jüngere'; (3) viele Wörter mit ungenauer Bedeutung

0.007889874 = product of:
  0.031559497 = sum of:
    0.031559497 = weight(_text_:headings in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031559497 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.10722393 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.00659326 = product of:
  0.02637304 = sum of:
    0.02637304 = weight(_text_:und in 2275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637304 = score(doc=2275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13453132 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.19603643 = fieldWeight in 2275, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2275)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Die Studie enthält Konsistenzzahlen bezogen auf die LCSH. Diese Zahlen sind kategorienbezogen und können teilweise auf die RSWK übertragen werden

0.0049449448 = product of:
  0.019779779 = sum of:
    0.019779779 = weight(_text_:und in 4284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019779779 = score(doc=4284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13453132 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 4284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4284)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.0049449448 = product of:
  0.019779779 = sum of:
    0.019779779 = weight(_text_:und in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019779779 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13453132 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.14702731 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus