{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016098484848484848, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003787878787878788, 'mean_word_length': 5.291666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conformity for Conformity's Sake? The Choice of a Classification System and a Subject Heading System in Academic Health Sciences Libraries

ABSTRACT This article investigates classification and subject heading systems used in academic health sciences libraries and the reasons these systems were chosen. The study also ascertains the respective systems used at the general libraries at the same academic institutions, in order to find out if there is a desire for conformity. Specific attention is paid to the question whether a shared OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) may play a role in this desire. The results show that 75% of the survey participants from academic health sciences libraries use primarily the NLM (National Library of Medicine) classification system and 95% use MeSH (Medical Subject Headings). General libraries at the same institutions overwhelmingly use the systems developed by the Library of Congress. The most compelling reason for the use of NLM systems is that they are considered the most appropriate for medical collections.