Dewey Decimal Classification Trending Downward in U.S. Academic Libraries, but Unlikely to Disappear Completely
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Lund, B., & Agbaji, D. (2018). Use of Dewey Decimal Classification by academic libraries in the United States. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 56(7), 653-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2018.1517851 Abstract Objective – To determine the current use of Dewey Decimal Classification in academic libraries in the United States of America (U.S.). Design – Cross-sectional survey using a systematic sampling method. Setting – Online academic library catalogues in the U.S. Subjects – 3,973 academic library catalogues. Methods – The researchers identified 3,973 academic libraries affiliated with degree-granting post-secondary institutions in the U.S. The researchers searched each library’s online catalogue for 10 terms from a predetermined list. From the results of each search, the researchers selected at least five titles, noted the classification scheme used to classify each title, and coded the library as using Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Library of Congress Classification (LCC), both DDC and LCC, or other classification schemes. Based on the results of their data collection, the researchers calculated totals. The totals of this current study’s data collection were compared to statistics on DDC usage from two previous reports, one published in 1975 and one in 1996. The researchers performed statistical analyses to determine if there were any discernible trends from the earliest reported statistics through to the current study. Main Results – Collections classified using DDC were present in 717 libraries (18.9%). Adjusting for the increase in the number of academic libraries in the U.S. between 1975 and 2017, DDC usage in academic libraries has declined by 56% in that time frame. The number of libraries with only DDC in evidence is unreported. Conclusion – The previous four decades have seen a significant decrease in the use of DDC in U.S. academic libraries in favour of LCC; however, the rate at which DDC has disappeared from academic libraries has slowed dramatically since the 1960s. There is no clear indication that DDC will disappear from academic libraries completely.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.051 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".