Search (1975 results, page 3 of 99)

0.034164157 = product of:
  0.13665663 = sum of:
    0.13665663 = weight(_text_:headings in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13665663 = score(doc=4870,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.46429324 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Data from multiple knowledge organization systems are combined to provide a global overview of the content holdings of a small personal library. Subject headings and classification data are used to effectively map the combined book and topic space of the library. While harvested and manipulated by hand, the work reveals issues and potential solutions when using automated techniques to produce topic maps of much larger libraries. The small library visualized consists of the thirty-nine, digital, English language books found in the Osama Bin Laden (OBL) compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan upon his death. As this list of books has garnered considerable media attention, it is worth providing a visual overview of the subject content of these books - some of which is not readily apparent from the titles. Metadata from subject headings and classification numbers was combined to create book-subject maps. Tree maps of the classification data were also produced. The books contain 328 subject headings. In order to enhance the base map with meaningful thematic overlay, library holding count data was also harvested (and aggregated from duplicates). This additional data revealed the relative scarcity or popularity of individual books.

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=1134,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1134, 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=1134)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Subject headings

Subject

Subject headings

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=3880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 3880, 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=3880)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Subject headings

Subject

Subject headings

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=418,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 418, 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=418)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the current information environment characterized by the proliferation of digital resources, including collaboratively created and shared resources, Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is facing the challenges of effective and efficient subject-based organization and retrieval of digital resources. To explore the feasibility of utilizing LCSH in a digital environment, we might need to revisit its basic characteristics. The objectives of our study were to analyze LCSH in both syntactic and relational structures, to discover the structural characteristics of LCSH, and to identify problems and issues for the feasibility of LCSH as an effective subject access tool. This study reports and discusses issues raised by the syntactic and hierarchical structures of LCSH that present challenges to its use in a networked environment. Given the results of this study, we recommend a number of provisional future directions for the development of LCSH towards further becoming a viable system for digital and networked resources.

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=1310,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1310, 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=1310)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve search by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST methodology complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 1494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=1494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1494, 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=1494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Multiple perspectives on the nonlinear processes of medical innovations can be distinguished and combined using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the MEDLINE database. Focusing on three main branches-"diseases," "drugs and chemicals," and "techniques and equipment"-we use base maps and overlay techniques to investigate the translations and interactions and thus to gain a bibliometric perspective on the dynamics of medical innovations. To this end, we first analyze the MEDLINE database, the MeSH index tree, and the various options for a static mapping from different perspectives and at different levels of aggregation. Following a specific innovation (RNA interference) over time, the notion of a trajectory which leaves a signature in the database is elaborated. Can the detailed index terms describing the dynamics of research be used to predict the diffusion dynamics of research results? Possibilities are specified for further integration between the MEDLINE database on one hand, and the Science Citation Index and Scopus (containing citation information) on the other.

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 1943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=1943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1943, 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=1943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=2886,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 2886, 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=2886)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article presents an Italian experience of developing streamlined semantic interoperability between the Italian Thesaurus of Nuovo soggettario and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). This ongoing project must take into consideration the differences between the two indexing tools, while the criteria on which the resulting actions are based are being clarified continually. Reciprocal interoperability, thanks to the Simple Knowledge Organization System format, enables us to create links with English language subject headings. The National Central Library of Florence is studying methods of automatically catching LCSH equivalents and the question of how to take advantage of both Semantic Web outputs and the multilingual dataset of Wikidata.

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 3492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=3492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 3492, 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=3492)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.

0.0334739 = product of:
  0.1338956 = sum of:
    0.1338956 = weight(_text_:headings in 519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1338956 = score(doc=519,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 519, 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=519)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The knowledge organization system prepared by the Library of Congress (LC) and widely used in academic libraries has some disadvantages for researchers in the fields of African American studies and LGBTQIA studies. The interdisciplinary nature of those fields means that browsing in stacks or shelflists organized by LC Classification requires looking in numerous locations. As well, persistent bias in the language used for subject headings, as well as the hierarchy of classification for books in these fields, continues to "other" the peoples and topics that populate these titles. This paper offers tools to help researchers have a holistic view of applicable titles across library shelves and hopes to become part of a larger conversation regarding social responsibility and diversity in the library community.

0.031559497 = product of:
  0.12623799 = sum of:
    0.12623799 = weight(_text_:headings in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12623799 = score(doc=549,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper attempts to explain the wide dissemination of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) within digital libraries and presents some of the advantages and disadvantages of using this controlled vocabulary in digital collections. The paper also presents other classifications used in digital collections for subject access and explores ways of improving search functionality in digital collections that employ LCSH. Design/methodology/approach - Unlike traditional libraries that use Library of Congress Classification for organization and retrieval, digital libraries use metadata forms for organization and retrieval. The collections exist in cyberspace of the internet which is known for containing the universe of knowledge. The use of LCSH for information retrieval has been widely criticized for its difficulty of use and its information retrieval effectiveness in online environments. The Library of Congress (LOC) has claimed the headings were not based on comprehensive principles nor ever intended to cover the universe of knowledge. Despite these claims and criticisms, LCSH is the most popular choice for subject access in digital libraries. Findings - The number of digital collections increases every year and LCSH is still the most popular choice of controlled vocabulary for subject access. Of the numerous criticisms, difficulties of use and user unfamiliarity are the greatest disadvantages of using LCSH for subject access. Average users only have a vague notion of what they are looking for when initializing a search. More work is required in automated generation of subject headings and increased usage of LCSH in faceted search retrieval systems. This will provide users with better access to the LCSH used in the back end of information retrieval. Originality/value - The Greek researchers who developed the Dissertation DSPace system believe this type of module will eventually replace the traditional keyword-based indexing back ends employed by many information retrieval modules within current digital library systems. The system offers the type of access and interactivity that will acquaint users with how LCSH looks and is used. Faceted search and automated pattern matching using an ontology based on LCSH have the best promise of overcoming the disadvantages that have always plagued the LOC-controlled vocabulary. These retrieval techniques give LCSH an opportunity to finally achieve the optimal precision and recall it has so far failed to deliver.

0.031559497 = product of:
  0.12623799 = sum of:
    0.12623799 = weight(_text_:headings in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12623799 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 2809, 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=2809)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.031559497 = product of:
  0.12623799 = sum of:
    0.12623799 = weight(_text_:headings in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12623799 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study is a citation analysis of a set of theses and dissertations in the Ohio State University's online catalog, for which the author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) are known. Correlations are sought between the types and ages of resources cited and the number of unique keywords and unique LCSH that were found. The author presents results found in three general discipline areas: arts and humanities, the social sciences, and science, technology, engineering, and medicine.

0.031559497 = product of:
  0.12623799 = sum of:
    0.12623799 = weight(_text_:headings in 757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12623799 = score(doc=757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 757, 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=757)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.02789492 = product of:
  0.11157968 = sum of:
    0.11157968 = weight(_text_:headings in 2102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11157968 = score(doc=2102,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 2102, 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=2102)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many large digital collections are currently organized by subject; although useful, these information organization structures are large and complex and thus difficult to browse. Current online tools and visualization prototypes show small, localized subsets and do not provide the ability to explore the predominant patterns of the overall subject structure. This study describes subject tree modifications that facilitate browsing for documents by capitalizing on the highly uneven distribution of real-world collections. The approach is demonstrated on two large collections organized by the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Results show that the LCSH subject tree can be reduced to 49% of its initial complexity while maintaining access to 83% of the collection, and the MeSH tree can be reduced to 45% of its initial complexity while maintaining access to 97% of the collection. A simple solution to negate the loss of access is discussed. The visual impact is demonstrated by using traditional outline views and a slider control allowing searchers to change the subject structure dynamically according to their needs. This study has implications for the development of information organization theory and human-information interaction techniques for subject trees.

0.02789492 = product of:
  0.11157968 = sum of:
    0.11157968 = weight(_text_:headings in 2970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11157968 = score(doc=2970,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 2970, 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=2970)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve searching by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users' searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST prototype complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.

0.02789492 = product of:
  0.11157968 = sum of:
    0.11157968 = weight(_text_:headings in 3292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11157968 = score(doc=3292,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.37909386 = fieldWeight in 3292, 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=3292)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Providing efficient access to information is a crucial library mission. Subject classification is one of the major pillars that guarantees the accessibility of records in libraries. In this paper we discuss the need to associate person IDs and URIs with subjects when a named person happens to be the subject of the document. This is often the case with biographies, schools of thought in philosophy, politics, art, and literary criticism. Using Semantic Web compliant data in subject name headings enhances the ability to collocate topics about a person. Also, in retrieval, books about a person would be easily linked to works by that same person. In the context of the Semantic Web, it is expected that, as the available information grows, one would be more effective in the task of information retrieval. Information about a person or, as in the case of this paper, about a researcher exist in various databases, which can be discipline specific or publishers' databases, and in such cases they have an assigned identifier. They also exist in institutional directory databases. We argue that these various databases can be leveraged to support improved discoverability and retrieval of research output for individual authors and institutions, as well as works about those authors.

0.02761456 = product of:
  0.11045824 = sum of:
    0.11045824 = weight(_text_:headings in 551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11045824 = score(doc=551,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 551, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=551)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe the reasoning, methodology, and impact behind a semi-automated cataloging process for electronic theses and dissertations, and to explain the importance of the retention and addition of cataloger-created metadata. The authors explain an automated process that is initiated by ProQuest and student (author) entered data, and through the addition of metadata by catalogers, including the subject headings, classification number, and so on. The study includes a survey of the public service librarians' perceived usefulness of the cataloger- and ProQuest-generated metadata to describe theses and dissertations.

0.02761456 = product of:
  0.11045824 = sum of:
    0.11045824 = weight(_text_:headings in 2935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11045824 = score(doc=2935,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2943326 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0606571 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 2935, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2935)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study concerns the overlap between author-supplied keywords and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) bibliographic records in the library catalog. The article provides a discussion on uniqueness, matching, and complementariness based on a replication of Strader's methodology and rubric from a 2009 article. Findings support most of Strader's conclusions, including the complementary nature of keywords and controlled vocabularies. Both keywords and LCSH provide unique terms that enhance access. Researchers also broke new ground regarding partial matching, particularly within LCSH. The fact that uniqueness matters has implications for the continued use of LCSH, for LCSH maintenance, and for further research.