Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028787265 = product of:
  0.05757453 = sum of:
    0.05757453 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.02067415 = product of:
  0.0413483 = sum of:
    0.0413483 = sum of:
      0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010148063 = score(doc=581,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 581, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=581)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=581,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 581, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=581)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The development of a facet analysis system to code and analyze data in a mixed-method study is discussed. The research goal was to identify the dimensions of interaction that contribute to student satisfaction in online Web-supported courses. The study was conducted between 2000 and 2002 at the Florida State University School of Information Studies. The researchers developed a facet analysis system that meets S. R. Ranganathan's ([1967]) requirements for articulation on three planes (idea, verbal, and notational). This system includes a codebook (verbal), coding procedures, and formulae (notational) for quantitative analysis of logs of chat sessions and postings to discussion boards for eight master's level courses taught online during the fall 2000 semester. Focus group interviews were subsequently held with student participants to confirm that results of the facet analysis reflected their experiences with the courses. The system was developed through a process of emergent coding. The researchers have been unable to identify any prior use of facet analysis for the analysis of research data as in this study. Identifying the facet analysis system was a major breakthrough in the research process, which, in turn, provided the researchers with a lens through which to analyze and interpret the data. In addition, identification of the faceted nature of the system opens up new possibilities for automation of the coding process.

Date

2.11.2007 10:22:40

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3945,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3945, 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=3945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the initial relationship between the Classification Research Group (CRG) and the Center for Documentation and Communication Research (CDCR) and how this relationship changed between 1952 and 1970. The theory of normative behavior and its concepts of worldviews, social norms, social types, and information behavior are used to characterize the relationship between the small worlds of the two groups with the intent of understanding the gap between early classification research and information retrieval (IR) research. Design/methodology/approach This is a mixed method analysis of two groups as evidenced in published artifacts by and about their work. A thorough review of historical literature about the groups as well as their own published works was employed and an author co-citation analysis was used to characterize the conceptual similarities and differences of the two groups of researchers. Findings The CRG focused on fundamental principles to aid classification and retrieval of information. The CDCR were more inclined to develop practical methods of retrieval without benefit of good theoretical foundations. The CRG began it work under the contention that the general classification schemes at the time were inadequate for the developing IR mechanisms. The CDCR rejected the classification schemes of the times and focused on developing punch card mechanisms and processes that were generously funded by both government and corporate funding. Originality/value This paper provides a unique historical analysis of two groups of influential researchers in the field of library and information science.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=786,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.

Type

a

0.0015127839 = product of:
  0.0030255679 = sum of:
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060511357 = score(doc=125,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes the work of the MARC Content Designation Utilization (MCDU) Project, funded by a National Leadership Grant from the U.S. Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The MCDU Project is analyzing approximately 56 million MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data records from OCLC's WorldCat database to identify actual use of the content designation available in the MARC bibliographic record. We consider bibliographic records as artifacts resulting from the overall cataloging enterprise, of which the encoding of the bibliographic data into MARC is only one part. Concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) can be used to examine and critically assess the availability of bibliographic data in these records, data meant to assist end users in finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining relevant information resources. Overall, the MCDU Project will provide empirical data reflecting the actual use of MARC content designation structures in this set of records. Specifically, the data can be used to demonstrate how catalogers' coding of bibliographic data may or may not assist end users in these four tasks. The project is using the mapping by Delsey of MARC data elements to FRBR user tasks in this analysis. These data are crucial for making decisions about the future of MARC and may inform current work on bibliographic rules reflected in the development of the next version of cataloging rules (i.e., Resource Description and Access) by the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=702,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 702, 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=702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging principles and objectives guide the formation of cataloging rules governing the organization of information within the library catalog, as well as the function of the catalog itself. Changes in technologies wrought by the internet and the web have been the driving forces behind shifting cataloging practice and reconfigurations of cataloging rules. Modern cataloging principles and objectives started in 1841 with the creation of Panizzi's 91 Rules for the British Museum and gained momentum with Charles Cutter's Rules for Descriptive Cataloging (1904). The first Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) was adopted in 1961, holding their place through such codifications as AACR and AACR2 in the 1970s and 1980s. Revisions accelerated starting in 2003 with the three original FR models. The Library Reference Model (LRM) in 2017 acted as a catalyst for the evolution of principles and objectives culminating in the creation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2013.

Type

a