Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0021981692 = product of:
  0.0043963385 = sum of:
    0.0043963385 = product of:
      0.008792677 = sum of:
        0.008792677 = weight(_text_:a in 5762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008792677 = score(doc=5762,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5762, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Despite its young age compared to similar programs in the United States, cataloging instruction in Israel has also been transformed to reflect the changes in the work done in libraries based on technological innovations and conceptions held by those involved in academia. Cataloging instruction in Israel is marked by a number of factors: * There has always been a division, carried through to today, between distinct and independent courses on various aspects of cataloging: A course on classification, a course on descriptive cataloging and a course on indexing. Even today, these courses are requirements in all of the instructional frameworks, though the length of the course has been reduced over the years * Over the years additional courses have been introduced as a reflection of the technological developments and work in the field * The majority of courses are now taught in computer labs * Switch to instruction by academics and not by librarians, workers in the field, as was customary for many decades * Focus of instruction in university departments on theory and understanding of concepts.

Type

a

0.0021981692 = product of:
  0.0043963385 = sum of:
    0.0043963385 = product of:
      0.008792677 = sum of:
        0.008792677 = weight(_text_:a in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008792677 = score(doc=507,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The No-Main-Entry Principle and the accompanying Description-Idependent System of cataloging, described in a 1989 article by Takawashi, Shihota and Oshiro, is analyzed in relation to the online catalog. The development of the main entry concept, from the time of the single entry catalog to the advent of the automated catalog is described. The relation between the available technologies of the time and the main entry concept is explored. Although the necessity for a main entry, or full cataloging record, in a single entry catalog is acknowledged, it is suggested that in an automated catalog it is no longer relevant. A recommendation that libraries with online catalogs explore the possibilities of cataloging according to the no-main-entry principle is accompanied by a stateement of the advantage of such a system and suggestions for implementing it.

Type

a

0.0018577921 = product of:
  0.0037155843 = sum of:
    0.0037155843 = product of:
      0.0074311686 = sum of:
        0.0074311686 = weight(_text_:a in 2700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074311686 = score(doc=2700,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2700, 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=2700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents the findings of a study of indexing procedure with the use of a thesaurus for post-coordination. In the first phase of the study, the indexing records of 50 books, prepared by a central cataloging service (the Israeli Center for Libraries), were compared with the indexing records for these books prepared by three independent indexers. In the second phase, indexing records for three books prepared by 51 librarians were studied. In both phases, indexing records were analyzed for mistakes and possible reasons for these mistakes are offered.

Type

a

0.0016788795 = product of:
  0.003357759 = sum of:
    0.003357759 = product of:
      0.006715518 = sum of:
        0.006715518 = weight(_text_:a in 5155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006715518 = score(doc=5155,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5155, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of the title as a source of information about books in library catalogs and as a device for retrieval has undergone many changes over time. The paper touches on its historical development, described the impact of technological changes, and analyzed the impact of the computers on the informativity of titles. Also, the differences between Western and Eastern cultures regarding use of title is described

Type

a

0.0014654462 = product of:
  0.0029308924 = sum of:
    0.0029308924 = product of:
      0.005861785 = sum of:
        0.005861785 = weight(_text_:a in 5442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005861785 = score(doc=5442,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 5442, 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=5442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Report on a discussion forum of the ALCTS SAC Subcommittee an Metadata and Subject Analysis

Content

The overall objective of this study was to examine the implementation of a different approach to the expression of the subject content of monographs in the cataloging record, i.e., the use of a post-coordinate, thesaurus of keywords, using inter-indexer consistency testing and in-depth analysis of mistakes in indexing. A sample of 50 non-fiction monographs was subject cataloged by 16 library science students (non-experienced indexers) using the new Hebrew Thesaurus of Indexing Terms (1996). The 800 indexing records of the non-experienced indexers were compared to the "correct indexing records" (prepared by a panel of three experienced indexers). Indexing consistency was measured using two different formulas used in previous inter-indexer studies. A medium level of inter-indexer consistency was found. In the analysis of mistakes, it was found that the most frequent mistake was the assignment of indexing terms to minor subject matter (i.e., subjects that were less than 20% of the content of the book). Among possible explanations offered for these finding are: sparseness of scope notes in the thesaurus, the priority given by Israeli public libraries to Hebrew language materials in the development of their non-fiction collection, and the size of the output of the Israeli publishing industry of non-fiction materials in Hebrew. The results of the consistency tests and the mistakes analysis were also examined in light of several factors: (1) the number of indexing terms assigned; (2) the length of the monographs (number of pages); and (3) subject area of each monograph. The same examinations were carried out for the subject cataloging records prepared by the Israeli Center for Libraries (ICL) for these monographs.

Type

a

0.0013707994 = product of:
  0.0027415988 = sum of:
    0.0027415988 = product of:
      0.0054831975 = sum of:
        0.0054831975 = weight(_text_:a in 7731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054831975 = score(doc=7731,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 7731, 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=7731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Arguments in favor of using classification numbers for subject access are discussed. A survey of online catalog users of the Israeli academic libraries (the ALEPH system), together with monitoring of user transactions of this system revealed almost no use of classification numbers as an access point; the basic reason being that users do not understand the meanings of the codes. Also, it is maintained that monographs, in which much activity is invested, are not our main source of information, and stet the use of the online catalog for subject search in any case declines over time. Therefore, it is suggested that resources be channeled in other directions

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 3453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039165695 = score(doc=3453,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3453, 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=3453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we describe the results of an experiment designed to understand the effects of background information and social interaction on image tagging. The participants in the experiment were asked to tag 12 preselected images of Jewish cultural heritage. The users were partitioned into three groups: the first group saw only the images with no additional information whatsoever, the second group saw the images plus a short, descriptive title, and the third group saw the images, the titles, and the URL of the page in which the image appeared. In the first stage of the experiment, each user tagged the images without seeing the tags provided by the other users. In the second stage, the users saw the tags assigned by others and were encouraged to interact. Results show that after the social interaction phase, the tag sets converged and the popular tags became even more popular. Although in all cases the total number of assigned tags increased after the social interaction phase, the number of distinct tags decreased in most cases. When viewing the image only, in some cases the users were not able to correctly identify what they saw in some of the pictures, but they overcame the initial difficulties after interaction. We conclude from this experiment that social interaction may lead to convergence in tagging and that the wisdom of the crowds helps overcome the difficulties due to the lack of information.

Type

a