Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Gross, T."
  1. Gross, T.; Taylor, A.G.; Joudrey, D.N.: Still a lot to lose : the role of controlled vocabulary in keyword searching (2015) 0.00 
    0.002814962 = product of:
  0.005629924 = sum of:
    0.005629924 = product of:
      0.011259848 = sum of:
        0.011259848 = weight(_text_:a in 2007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011259848 = score(doc=2007,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 2007, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In their 2005 study, Gross and Taylor found that more than a third of records retrieved by keyword searches would be lost without subject headings. A review of the literature since then shows that numerous studies, in various disciplines, have found that a quarter to a third of records returned in a keyword search would be lost without controlled vocabulary. Other writers, though, have continued to suggest that controlled vocabulary be discontinued. Addressing criticisms of the Gross/Taylor study, this study replicates the search process in the same online catalog, but after the addition of automated enriched metadata such as tables of contents and summaries. The proportion of results that would be lost remains high.
    Type
    a
  2. Gross, T.: Naming and reframing : a taxonomy of attacks on knowledge organization (2015) 0.00 
    0.001823924 = product of:
  0.003647848 = sum of:
    0.003647848 = product of:
      0.007295696 = sum of:
        0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 2357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007295696 = score(doc=2357,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2357, 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=2357)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Most knowledge organization practices have opinionated detractors. Some criticisms are informed and serious, but unsubstantiated assertions and fatuous dismissals are so commonplace that practitioners grow weary of the perpetual need to refute them. Many have had the experience of conducting and publishing research that contradicts a popular misguided claim, and then seeing this evidence have little effect on the continued repetition of the claim. In this paper, which is part polemical essay, I attempt to contribute another tool for tackling this problem: a taxonomy of attacks on knowledge organization. Categorizing and devising names for the major strains of deprecation of knowledge organization, cataloging, and metadata will not defeat those arguments, but identifying and reframing them might strengthen the knowledge organization community's resolve to take them on. Warning: there might be neologisms!
    Type
    a
  3. Gross, T.: Eliminate, abandon, dismantle : cataloging in library consultant reports (2012) 0.00 
    0.0016085497 = product of:
  0.0032170995 = sum of:
    0.0032170995 = product of:
      0.006434199 = sum of:
        0.006434199 = weight(_text_:a in 427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006434199 = score(doc=427,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 427, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    If you worked in an academic library in 2012, you probably read the report Redefining the Academic Library: Managing the Migration to Digital Information Services (UAL 2011). There's a good chance that you were asked to participate in discussions organized around it. It was circulated widely and hailed as a seminal report, with very little criticism or disagreement expressed in public venues. The report has strengths, such as its overview of the problems impeding the provision of access to ebooks and its advocacy of embedding librarians in courses and departments. Its discussion of scholarly communication models presents open access as a positive and necessary development. From an information organization perspective, however, it is abysmal. It says nothing about the future or "redefining" of cataloging and metadata in academic libraries, other than advocating that they outsource cataloging entirely. Overall, the report is characterized by the exultation of leanness and austerity, encouraging libraries to accommodate themselves to greatly reduced budgets and to view this as visionary and innovative. The library services that the report presents as relevant to meeting the needs of current and future users are ones already welcomed by most librarians, but it sharply counterposes the implementation of these services with the continuation of those it designates as "lowimpact" activities, such as cataloging. It makes sweeping recommendations that, if implemented, could mean the demise not just of cataloging and metadata creation in academic libraries, but also of collection building and traditional reference services provided by librarians based at the user's own institution. Despite the fact that the cataloging and library metadata community is bustling with discussion and debate about its future, it has made little response to this report. Whatever the reasons for this, the community needs to be ready to take advantage of any opportunity to engage colleagues about the role of information organization in libraries and the ways in which it ought to evolve, and to address misconceptions and false assumptions that have the potential to influence administrators. In the spirit of developing a consistent framework, what follows is a proposed series of questions (perhaps the beginnings of a checklist) that catalogers should attempt to answer when analyzing and responding to consultant's reports. They are posed here to Redefining the Academic Library.
    Type
    a

Authors

Themes