Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028787265 = product of:
  0.05757453 = sum of:
    0.05757453 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=7242,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=602,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to elicit information from the users of the Wisconsin University at Madison online catalogue (Network Library System (NLS)). The General Library System (GLS) conducted focus group interviews with undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty. Undergraduate students tend to utilize subject searching capabilities. Graduate students and faculty utilize subject searching only as a last resort; they typically search by known author or title. A significant number of the participants reported experience with library online catalogues other than NLS, although the majority of faculty reported very little experience with other online catalogues. All the focus group participants, but particularly the undergraduate students, evidenced confusion between keyword searching and searching controlled vocabulary. Inclusion of circulation status in the bibliographic records was identified as an important feature of the catalogue

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=665,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 665, 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=665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The theory versus practice issue in library and information science education in general and in cataloguing education in particular has long been debated. Decreasing budgets, dependence on technology, the availability of bibliographic utilities, and the outsourcing of cataloguing may contribute to the debate and concern associated with cataloguing education. A new library and information services programme at University College of the University of Denver was designed to incorporate the research and scholarly thought and the practice of the library and information science discipline with other related disciplines. The cataloguing component developed for the programme utilizes active learning techniques supplemented by a theoretical core

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 1584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=1584,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1584, 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=1584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a procedural set of software routines which allow the conversion of MARC records retrieved from one cataloguing source to be converted for use in a microcomputer environment. Shows how BASIC and dBASE programs have been developed to retrieve and store MARC records from cataloguing sources in pure ASCII format. The developed software programs enable libraries to process, store and retrieve MARC records created by other cataloguing sources for local use, in an inexpensive way. Appendices present the program listings

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=307,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports an examination of the results of 114 sessions on the online catalogue, at the Ellis Library, Missouri University at Columbia, to determine what types of searches were conducted and what search modes and fields (title, author) were used. Examination of tranaction logs revealed that title and author searches predominated and that the opportunity to construct Boolean searches was rarely taken advantage of. The searchers themselves reported that they were, on the whole, experienced at using the system; most searched the catalogue at least once a week. This is reflected in the relatively low instance of error and in the fact that most searches produced at least some hits. The majority of errors that were made in the process of searching were typographical

Type

a