An interesting variant, if it's easy to run:   what are the counts using  distinct work-sets instead of records? 
Another variant that might be interesting:  if records are filtered to exclude only those with, say, ten or more holdings,  


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Tennant,Roy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Let me do this again (from scratch, even). The following are the number of records that have the listed elements, out of 289,294,984 records processed, as of 1 January 2013 in WorldCat:

700 $4: 14,229,291 or 4.92% of the total
700 $e: 9,904,536 or 3.42% of the total


On 1/18/13 1/18/13 • 10:33 AM, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:11 PM, "Godsey-Bell, Connie F. (LNG-DAY)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

What percent of the total do the total occurrences represent?

And what number of unique records have a 700 with a $4 or an $e?


Connie Godsey-Bell,
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask] <http://LISTSERV.LOC.GOV> ] On Behalf Of Tennant,Roy

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens

On 1/18/13 1/18/13 • 9:24 AM, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
How often, on aggregate, is the 100 or 700 $4 or $e used?  Since I've parsed a lot of MARC records, I can tell you.  Not much (and the inconsistency of the $e makes this even less useful).

I can tell you exactly, as of December 1, 2012 in WorldCat:

Total number of records: 287,229,344
Total occurrences of a 700 field:
Total occurrences of 700 $4: 24,908,408
Total occurrences of a 700 $e: 14,117,538