Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019041913 = product of:
  0.038083825 = sum of:
    0.038083825 = sum of:
      0.0074311686 = weight(_text_:a in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0074311686 = score(doc=2264,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.030652655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652655 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.002374294 = product of:
  0.004748588 = sum of:
    0.004748588 = product of:
      0.009497176 = sum of:
        0.009497176 = weight(_text_:a in 1923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009497176 = score(doc=1923,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1923, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1923)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the characteristics of Canadian publications by analyzing their bibliographic relationships based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. The study indicates frequencies of occurrence of work-to-work bibliographic relationships for manifestations published in 2009 and catalogued in the AMICUS online catalogue. The results show that approximately 4.4 percent of the 2009 bibliographic records in the AMICUS catalogue exhibit a work-to-work bibliographic relationship.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Type

a

0.001938603 = product of:
  0.003877206 = sum of:
    0.003877206 = product of:
      0.007754412 = sum of:
        0.007754412 = weight(_text_:a in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007754412 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001938603 = product of:
  0.003877206 = sum of:
    0.003877206 = product of:
      0.007754412 = sum of:
        0.007754412 = weight(_text_:a in 5434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007754412 = score(doc=5434,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5434, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5434)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently, the Library of Congress adopted the pinyin Romanization system for transcribing Chinese data in its bibliographic records. In its canonical form, pinyin aggregates Chinese "words" into single linguistic units, but pinyin entries could be constructed following either a monosyllabic or a polysyllabic pattern. Although the former is easier and less costly to implement, the latter method is potentially more beneficial for end-users, as it reduces ambiguity, and generates a much larger variety of indexable terms. The current study investigates if following the polysyllabic method improves retrieval efficiency and effectiveness in item-specific searching within online bibliographic databases. Analysis of the results revealed that aggregation of monosyllables does improve efficiency significantly (p < .05), especially during keyword searches, while effectiveness remains mainly unaffected.

Type

a

0.001938603 = product of:
  0.003877206 = sum of:
    0.003877206 = product of:
      0.007754412 = sum of:
        0.007754412 = weight(_text_:a in 1990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007754412 = score(doc=1990,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1990, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1990)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports on a joint translation project (France and Canada) of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard into French. We describe how the translation committee worked, explain the methodology, and present the measures taken to ensure that all contributing parties be satisfied with the end result. The article discusses problems that arose when dealing with translating specific instructions and examples that needed to be adapted (or changed) to the French context. Other sections report on technical and managerial challenges encountered. We conclude with "lessons learned" that will hopefully help others embarking on such a project.

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "RDA around the world"

Type

a

0.0019187195 = product of:
  0.003837439 = sum of:
    0.003837439 = product of:
      0.007674878 = sum of:
        0.007674878 = weight(_text_:a in 2198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007674878 = score(doc=2198,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2198, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When researchers at the Musée pour Rire, the international museum of humour in Montréal, Quebec, Canada, started to research film and video extracts for incorporation into the museum exhibits, it became obvious that a database with very specific subject access was necessary. A modified version of PRECIS, dubbed PRECIS-MO, was adopted. Discussed the adaptation and implementation

Type

a

0.0016616598 = product of:
  0.0033233196 = sum of:
    0.0033233196 = product of:
      0.006646639 = sum of:
        0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 5456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006646639 = score(doc=5456,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5456, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5456)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging is a dynamic and ever changing activity. Developments in codes and standards create a need for continuing reconsideration of the design of our curricula. Format integration, in particular, raises questions about the structure of curricula for cataloging and classification. The issues relating to differing formats of materials are not new, but the process of standardization of treatment, which was begun quite tentatively in the development of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) has blossomed to the fore in the ensuing years. This paper examines the historical context of the integration of formats before addressing the continuing arguments that maintain that all types of materials should be treated in an introductory course as opposed to those that assert that format issues should not be covered in any depth in an introductory course. A design for an integrated, but not exhaustive, treatment of formats in an introductory course with more detailed coverage included in advanced courses is proposed.

Type

a

0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=87,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today, two Romanization systems for Chinese data are in use in most libraries in the Western world: 1) Wade-Giles, and 2) Hanyu pinyin (simply referred to as pinyin). In 1997, the Library of Congress finally officially announced the adoption of pinyin for Romanizing Chinese data in its bibliographic records. One of the main problems in implementing the pinyin standard for library use is that pinyin, as opposed to Wade-Giles, aggregates Chinese "words" into single linguistic units. Chinese characters represent monosyllabic morphemes rather than words and are equally spaced from one another, and the Chinese text, in its original form, does not provide visual cues as to where a word starts or ends. When the script is romanized it is however essential that syllables or words be separated from one another, since, in most information retrieval techniques, the identification of "visual words" is required. In this respect, the Romanized strings could be divided either in monosyllables or in polysyllable words. This study aims to explore the impact of using either unaggregated pinyin (monosyllabic) or aggregated pinyin (polysyllabic) Romanization in Chinese-language bibliographic records. An experiment, using transaction log analysis, was carried out to observe variations in the retrieval performance of title searches-both phrase and keyword-in a large OPAC of Chinese language records. General results are presented and a summary of the pros and cons of using either method is given

Type

a

9.791424E-4 = product of:
  0.0019582848 = sum of:
    0.0019582848 = product of:
      0.0039165695 = sum of:
        0.0039165695 = weight(_text_:a in 609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039165695 = score(doc=609,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 609, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=609)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Aims to measure syllable aggregation consistency of Romanized Chinese data in the title fields of bibliographic records. Also aims to verify if the term frequency distributions satisfy conventional bibliometric laws. Design/methodology/approach - Uses Cooper's interindexer formula to evaluate aggregation consistency within and between two sets of Chinese bibliographic data. Compares the term frequency distributions of polysyllabic words and monosyllabic characters (for vernacular and Romanized data) with the Lotka and the generalised Zipf theoretical distributions. The fits are tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Findings - Finds high internal aggregation consistency within each data set but some aggregation discrepancy between sets. Shows that word (polysyllabic) distributions satisfy Lotka's law but that character (monosyllabic) distributions do not abide by the law. Research limitations/implications - The findings are limited to only two sets of bibliographic data (for aggregation consistency analysis) and to one set of data for the frequency distribution analysis. Only two bibliometric distributions are tested. Internal consistency within each database remains fairly high. Therefore the main argument against syllable aggregation does not appear to hold true. The analysis revealed that Chinese words and characters behave differently in terms of frequency distribution but that there is no noticeable difference between vernacular and Romanized data. The distribution of Romanized characters exhibits the worst case in terms of fit to either Lotka's or Zipf's laws, which indicates that Romanized data in aggregated form appear to be a preferable option. Originality/value - Provides empirical data on consistency and distribution of Romanized Chinese titles in bibliographic records.

Type

a

8.308299E-4 = product of:
  0.0016616598 = sum of:
    0.0016616598 = product of:
      0.0033233196 = sum of:
        0.0033233196 = weight(_text_:a in 321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033233196 = score(doc=321,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 321, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a