Aligning Author-Supplied Keywords for ETDs with Domain-Specific Controlled Vocabularies

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Abstract

Subject access can provide essential points of access for users to find, identify, select, and obtain various resources available in libraries. Subject access is not always available, however, due to the increasing amount of metadata created by non-catalogers (including author-supplied metadata), changes in libraries’ discovery services, and a lack of best practices for aligning non-controlled vocabularies to authorized subject headings. This paper addresses the issue of author-supplied metadata, specifically how to align keywords submitted by authors of electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and discipline-specific taxonomies by analyzing 32,696 keywords from 5,365 master's theses and doctoral dissertations submitted to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's institutional repository between 2010 and 2014. This paper shares findings from the data analysis, including that matching rates vary depending on college, with newer or rapidly-developing fields (such as the School of Molecular and Cellular Biology) having lower matching rates than traditional, well-established fields of study (such as the College of Agriculture, Consumer, and Environmental Sciences), and recommends that when keyword reconciliation is performed, it should be done with more than one authority in tandem for the best results; when the LCSH and discipline-specific controlled vocabularies were combined, matching results were slightly or moderately increased.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Europeana. (2015). Report on Enrichment and Evaluation. Available at http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/EuropeanaTech/EuropeanaTech_taskforces/Enrichment_Evaluation//FinalReport_EnrichmentEvaluation_102015.pdf. (Accessed Feb 2, 2016) Hjørland, B. & Kyllesbech Nielsen, L. (2001). Subject Access Points in Electronic Retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 35, 249-298. IFLA. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, Final Report 1998. Available at http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr3.htm. (Accessed Feb 2, 2016) Larson, R. R. (1991). The Decline of Subject Searching: Long-Term Trends and Patterns of Index Use in an Online Catalog. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(3), 197-215. Lubas, R. L. (2009). Defining Best Practices in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 9(3-4), 252–263. http://doi.org/10.1080/19386380903405165 Maurer, M. B., McCutcheon, S., & Schwing, T. (2011). Who’s Doing What? Findability and Author-Supplied ETD Metadata in the Library Catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49(4), 277–310. http://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2011.573440 Richardson, W., Srinivasan, V., & Fox, E. (2008). Knowledge Discovery in Digital Libraries of Electronic Theses and Dissertations: an NDLTD Case Study. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 9(2), 163–171. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-008-0046-9 Sapon-White, R. E., & Hansbrough, M. (1998). The Impact of Subject Heading Assignment on Circulation of Dissertations at Virginia Tech. Library Resources & Technical Services, 42(4), 282-91. Schwing, T., McCutcheon, S., & Maurer, M. B. (2012). Uniqueness Matters: Author-Supplied Keywords and LCSH in the Library Catalog. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(8), 903–928. http://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.703164 Strader, C. R. (2009). Author-Assigned Keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings. Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(4), 243-250.