Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Seikel, M."
  1. Shorten, J.; Seikel, M.; Ahrberg, J.H.: Why do you still use dewey? : Academic libraries that continue with dewey decimal classification (2005) 0.02 
    0.021532679 = product of:
  0.057420477 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=125,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 125, 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=125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Reclassification was a popular trend during the 1960s and 1970s for many academic libraries wanting to change from Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) to Library of Congress (LC) Classification. In 2002, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale's Morris Library changed from DDC to LC. If one academic library recently converted, might other DDC academic libraries consider switching, too? Conversely, for those academic libraries that remain with DDC, what are the reasons they continue with it? A survey of thirty-four DDC academic libraries in the United States and Canada determined what factors influence these libraries to continue using DDC, and if reclassification is something they have considered or are considering. The survey also investigated whether patrons of these DDC libraries prefer LC and if their preference influences the library's decision to reclassify. Results from the survey indicate that the issue of reclassification is being considered by some of these libraries even though, overall, they are satisfied with DDC. The study was unable to determine if patrons' preference for a classification scheme influenced a library's decision to reclassify.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Seikel, M.: General notes in catalog records versus FRBR user tasks (2013) 0.01 
    0.010868087 = product of:
  0.04347235 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 1929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=1929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 1929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1929)
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 1929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=1929,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1929, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1929)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This article analyzes the literature concerning uses of notes in bibliographic records and also certain grammatical conventions used by catalogers to communicate information about the resources they are describing. It shows that these types of data do not aid the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) user tasks in the resource discovery process. It also describes how general notes are addressed in Resource Description Access (RDA), and advocates that cataloging practices involving most general notes and such conventions as bracketing and abbreviations should be discontinued with the widespread use of RDA.
  3. Blackman, C.; Moore, E.R.; Seikel, M.; Smith, M.: WorldCat and SkyRiver (2014) 0.01 
    0.00793822 = product of:
  0.03175288 = sum of:
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=2602,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 2602, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2602)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=2602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2602, 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=2602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    In 2009, a new company, SkyRiver, began offering bibliographic utility services to libraries in direct competition to OCLC's WorldCat. This study examines the differences between the two databases in terms of hit rates, total number of records found for each title in the sample, number of non-English language records, and the presence and completeness of several elements in the most-held bibliographic record for each title. While this study discovered that the two databases had virtually the same hit rates and record fullness for the sample used-with encoding levels as the sole exception-the study results do indicate meaningful differences in the number of duplicate records and non-English-language records available in each database for recently published scholarly monographs.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Authors

Years

Types

Themes