Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 3699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=3699,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3699, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3699)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The library and information science (LIS) literature on abstracting makes little mention about abstracting conducted in the corporate / business environment, whereas the business literature suggests that abstarcting is a very important component of business writing. Examines a variety of publications from LIS and business in order to compare and contrast their approaches to the following aspects of abstracting: definitions of abstracts; types of abstracts; purpose of abstracts; and writing of abstracts. Summarises the results of the examination which revealed a number of similarities, differences, and inadequacies in the ways in which both fields approach abstracting. Concludes that both fields need to develop more detailed guidelines concerning the cognitive process of abstracting and suggests improvements to the training af absractors based on these findings

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 5362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=5362,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5362, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5362)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The goal of this study is to evaluate, compare, and contrast how facet analysis is used to construct the systematic or faceted displays of a selection of information retrieval thesauri. More specifically, the study seeks to examine which principles of facet analysis are used in the thesauri, and the extent to which different thesauri apply these principles in the same way. A measuring instrument was designed for the purpose of evaluating the structure of faceted thesauri. This instrument was applied to fourteen faceted information retrieval thesauri. The study reveals that the thesauri do not share a common definition of what constitutes a facet. In some cases, the thesauri apply both enumerative-style classification and facet analysis to arrange their indexing terms. A number of the facets used in the thesauri are not homogeneous or mutually exclusive. The principle of synthesis is used in only 50% of the thesauri, and no one citation order is used consistently by the thesauri.

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 5216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=5216,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5216, 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=5216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This pilot study examines the use of word association testing in the derivation of user-derived descriptors, descriptor hierarchies, and categories of inter-term relationships for the purpose of thesaurus construction. Ten participants, who were students, were presented with a test-bed of 15 domain-specific stimulus terms and were asked to provide as many response words as they could for each stimulus term and to describe how the response and stimulus terms are inter-related. The word association test was successful in generating a significant number of word pairs and facet indicators that could be used to display inter-term relationships in thesauri.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=2495,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2495, 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=2495)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Conceptual coherence, which refers to concepts whose contents make sense to the perceiver, has been associated traditionally with the notion of similarity, that is, objects, events, or entities form a concept because they are similar to one another. An examination of traditional similarity-based concept theories suggests that they do not provide an adequate account for conceptual coherence. Library and Information Science needs to explore knowledge-based approaches to concept formation, which suggest that one's knowledge of a concept includes not just a representation of its features, but also an explicit representation of the causal mechanisms that people believe link those features to form a coherent whole.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3561,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3561, 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=3561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An increasingly difficult challenge in social tagging applications is negotiating the number of existing tags. This article examines the use of facets to facilitate the efficient organization and browsing of tags into manageable and distinct categories. Current and proposed methodologies for the application of facets in social tagging applications are evaluated. Results of this analysis indicate that these methodologies provide insufficient guidelines for the choice, evaluation, and maintenance of the facets. Suggestions are made to guide the design of a more rigorous methodology for the application of facets to social tagging applications.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem special issue: Is there a catalog in your future? Celebrating Nancy J. Williamson: Scholar, educator, colleague, mentor

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=5565,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogues are providing opportunities for library professionals and users to interact, collaborate, and enhance core library functions. Technology, innovation, and creativity are all components that are merging to create a localized, online social space that brings our physical library services and experiences into an online environment. While patrons are comfortable creating user-generated information on commercial Web sites and social media Web sites, library professionals should be exploring alternative methods of use for these tools within the library setting. Can the library catalogue promote remote readers' advisory services and act as a localized "Google"? Will patrons or library professionals be the driving force behind user-generated content within our catalogues? How can cataloguers be sure that the integrity of their bibliographic records is protected while inviting additional data sources to display in our catalogues? As library catalogues bring our physical library services into the online environment, catalogues also begin to encroach or "mash-up" with other areas of librarianship that have not been part of a cataloguer's expertise. Using library catalogues beyond their traditional role as tools for discovery and access raises issues surrounding the expertise of library professionals and the benefits of collaboration between frontline and backroom staff.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 5582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=5582,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5582, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

If the public library catalogue is to continue to have relevance to its users, it needs to move beyond its current inventory model, where all content is designed and controlled by library staff and client interaction with catalogue content is limited, to a social catalogue, where users can contribute to, and interact with information and with each other. The goal of this report is to present the results of an analysis of four months worth of log analysis of two social discovery systems used in two Canadian public libraries to examine: (a) how public library users interact with social discovery systems; (b) how usage compares between the two social discovery systems; and (c) whether the use of the features in social discovery systems is consistent over time. Results suggest that clients are making limited use of the social features of the system that allow them to interact with the catalogue records and with one another.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2975,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2975, 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=2975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines and evaluates the social features and comprehensiveness of the catalogue records of 16 popular social cataloguing web sites to determine whether their social and cataloguing features could or should impact the design of library catalogue records. Selected monograph records were evaluated to determine the extent to which they contained the standard International Standard Bibliographic Description elements used in Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules-based cataloguing practice, with emphasis placed on the physical description of the records. The heuristics Communication, Identity, and Perception were used to evaluate the sites' social features. Although the bibliographic content of most of the catalogue records examined was poor when assessed by professional cataloguing practice, their social features can help make the library catalogue a lively community of interest where people can share their reading interests with one another.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=4798,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4798, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 372) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=372,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 372, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=372)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a