Search (45 results, page 1 of 3)

0.0149040185 = product of:
  0.044712055 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=623,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 623, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=623)
    0.03473446 = product of:
      0.06946892 = sum of:
        0.06946892 = weight(_text_:ausbildung in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06946892 = score(doc=623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23429902 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.29649687 = fieldWeight in 623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Cataloging and metadata description is one of the major competencies that a trainee cataloger must conquer. According to recent research results, library and information studies students experience difficulties understanding the theory, the terminology, and the tools necessary for cataloging. The experimental application of teaching models which derive from predominant learning theories, such as behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, may help in detecting the difficulties of a cataloging course and in suggesting efficient solutions. This paper presents in detail three teaching models applied for a cataloging course and investigates their effectiveness, based on a survey of 126 first-year students. The survey employed the Kirkpatrick model aiming to record undergraduate students' perceptions and feelings about cataloging. The results revealed that, although a positive change in students' behavior towards cataloging has been achieved, they still do not feel very confident about the skills they have acquired. Moreover, students felt that practicing cataloging more frequently will eliminate their difficulties. Finally, they emphasized the need for face to face courses, as the survey took place in the coronavirus pandemic, during which the courses were held via distance learning.

Theme

Ausbildung

0.012007969 = product of:
  0.036023907 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=5749,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
    0.02365813 = product of:
      0.04731626 = sum of:
        0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04731626 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, 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=5749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This article describes experiments in the use of machine learning techniques at the British Library to assign language codes to catalog records, in order to provide information about the language of content of the resources described. In the first phase of the project, language codes were assigned to 1.15 million records with 99.7% confidence. The automated language identification tools developed will be used to contribute to future enhancement of over 4 million legacy records.

Date

2. 3.2020 19:04:22

0.00990557 = product of:
  0.02971671 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=941,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, 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=941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Inferring the gender of named entities present in a text has several practical applications in information sciences. Existing approaches toward name gender identification rely exclusively on using the gender distributions from labeled data. In the absence of such labeled data, these methods fail. In this article, we propose a two-stage model that is able to infer the gender of names present in text without requiring explicit name-gender labels. We use coreference resolution as the backbone for our proposed model. To aid coreference resolution where the existing contextual information does not suffice, we use a retrieval-assisted context aggregation framework. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art name gender inference is possible without supervision. Our proposed method matches or outperforms several supervised approaches and commercially used methods on five English language datasets from different domains.

Date

22. 3.2023 12:00:14

0.008254642 = product of:
  0.024763925 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=883,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In this article, we present a method to automatically build large labeled datasets for the author ambiguity problem in the academic world by leveraging the authoritative academic resources, ORCID and DOI. Using the method, we built LAGOS-AND, two large, gold-standard sub-datasets for author name disambiguation (AND), of which LAGOS-AND-BLOCK is created for clustering-based AND research and LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE is created for classification-based AND research. Our LAGOS-AND datasets are substantially different from the existing ones. The initial versions of the datasets (v1.0, released in February 2021) include 7.5 M citations authored by 798 K unique authors (LAGOS-AND-BLOCK) and close to 1 M instances (LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE). And both datasets show close similarities to the whole Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) across validations of six facets. In building the datasets, we reveal the variation degrees of last names in three literature databases, PubMed, MAG, and Semantic Scholar, by comparing author names hosted to the authors' official last names shown on the ORCID pages. Furthermore, we evaluate several baseline disambiguation methods as well as the MAG's author IDs system on our datasets, and the evaluation helps identify several interesting findings. We hope the datasets and findings will bring new insights for future studies. The code and datasets are publicly available.

Date

22. 1.2023 18:40:36

0.007504981 = product of:
  0.022514943 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=5930,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 5930, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5930)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5930, 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=5930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In author name disambiguation, author forenames are used to decide which name instances are disambiguated together and how much they are likely to refer to the same author. Despite such a crucial role of forenames, their effect on the performance of heuristic (string matching) and algorithmic disambiguation is not well understood. This study assesses the contributions of forenames in author name disambiguation using multiple labeled data sets under varying ratios and lengths of full forenames, reflecting real-world scenarios in which an author is represented by forename variants (synonym) and some authors share the same forenames (homonym). The results show that increasing the ratios of full forenames substantially improves both heuristic and machine-learning-based disambiguation. Performance gains by algorithmic disambiguation are pronounced when many forenames are initialized or homonyms are prevalent. As the ratios of full forenames increase, however, they become marginal compared to those by string matching. Using a small portion of forename strings does not reduce much the performances of both heuristic and algorithmic disambiguation methods compared to using full-length strings. These findings provide practical suggestions, such as restoring initialized forenames into a full-string format via record linkage for improved disambiguation performances.

Date

11. 7.2020 13:22:58

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=123,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 123, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=123)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=127,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article discusses how libraries can include person identifiers in the MARC format. It suggests using URIs in fields and subfields to help transition the data to an RDF model, and to help prepare the catalog for a Linked Data. It analyzes the selection of URIs and Real-World Objects, and the use of tag 024 to describe person identifiers in authority records. When a creator or collaborator is identified in a work, the identifiers are transferred from authority to the bibliographic record. The article concludes that URI-based descriptions can provide a better experience for users, offering other methods of discovery.

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=702,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=124,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In 1988 the Library of Congress and eight library participants undertook a two-year pilot known as the National Coordinated Cataloging Program (NCCP) to increase the number of quality bibliographic records. Subsequently the Bibliographic Services Study Committee reviewed the pilot. Discussions held at the Library of Congress (LC) and in other fora resulted in the creation of the Cooperative Cataloging Council, and, ultimately, the establishment of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) in 1994. The conditions that contributed to a successful approach to shared cataloging are described. The article concludes with considerations for expanding the future effectiveness of the PCC.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=729,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 729, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=729)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study uses the recently released Cataloguing Code of Ethics to evaluate a project which explored how to ethically, efficiently, and accurately add demographic terms for African-American authors to catalog records. By reviewing the project through the lens of these principles the authors were able to examine how their practice was ethical in some ways but could have been improved in others. This helped them identify areas of potential improvement in their current and future research and practice and explore ethical difficulties in cataloging resources with records that are used globally, especially in a linked data environment.

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=1183,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper brings light to the existing practice of cataloging in the college libraries of Assam in terms of utilizing the MARC 21 standard and its structure, i.e., the tags, subfield codes, and indicators. Catalog records from six college libraries are collected and a survey is conducted to understand the local users' information requirements for the catalog. Places, where libraries have scope to improve and which divisions of tags could be more helpful for them in information retrieval, are identified and suggested. This study fulfilled the need for local-level assessment of the catalogs.

0.0021034614 = product of:
  0.012620768 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=1184,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Typographical errors in bibliographic records of online library catalogs are a common troublesome phenomenon, spread all over the world. They can affect the retrieval and identification of items in information retrieval systems and thus prevent users from finding the documents they need. The present study was conducted to measure typographical errors in the online catalog of the Egyptian Universities Libraries Consortium (EULC). The investigation depended on Terry Ballard's typographical error terms list. The EULC catalog was searched to identify matched erroneous records. The study found that the total number of erroneous records reached 1686, whereas the mean error rate for each record is 11.24, which is very high. About 396 erroneous records (23.49%) have been retrieved from Section C of Ballard's list (Moderate Probability). The typographical errors found within the abstracts of the study's sample records represented 35.82%. Omissions were the first common type of errors with 54.51%, followed by transpositions at 17.08%. Regarding the analysis of parts of speech, the study found that 63.46% of errors occur in noun terms. The results of the study indicated that typographical errors still pose a serious challenge for information retrieval systems, especially for library systems in the Arab environment. The study proposes some solutions for Egyptian university libraries in order to avoid typographic mistakes in the future.

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 5802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=5802,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 5802, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5802)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to gauge the cataloging practices within the public library sector seen from the catalog with Norway as a case, based on a sample of records from public libraries and cataloging agencies. Findings suggest that libraries make few changes to records they import from central agencies, and that larger libraries make more changes than smaller libraries. Findings also suggest that libraries catalog and modify records with their patrons in mind, and though the extent is not large, cataloging proficiency is still required in the public library domain, at least in larger libraries, in order to ensure correct and consistent metadata.

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=707,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper discusses the basics of creating name authority records for Arabic personal names in accordance with Resource Description and Access instructions and Program for Cooperative Cataloging guidelines. A background into the use of romanization for non-Latin scripts in bibliographic and authority records is provided to establish the context. Issues with romanization that are particular to Arabic are addressed. Separate sections on modern and classical names provide an overview of the major challenges, and strategies to enhance discovery are outlined. The paper concludes with an examination of the possible benefits of identity management and other changes in the authority control landscape for names in non-Latin script.

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=715,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Often relegated to a side note in conversations about curriculum materials collections, psychological tests deserve their own consideration in library cataloging. Libraries that are dedicated to psychology (or psychology and a related field, such as education) lend psychological tests either for reference or for usage in clinical training programs. These libraries, largely academic, have a need for guidelines regarding the cataloging of psychological tests, as those developed under the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2) are no longer satisfactory for Resource Description and Access (RDA) cataloging. This paper provides an overview of AACR2 cataloging guidelines and proposes new RDA best practices when cataloging psychological assessments, including kits.

0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 5747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=5747,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 5747, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5747)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Drawing on the PCC's history with linked data and related work this article identifies and gives context to pressing areas PCC will need to focus on moving forward. These areas include defining plausible data targets, tractable implementation models and data flows, engaging in related tool development, and participating in the broader linked data community.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=5708,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=1131,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

0.001821651 = product of:
  0.010929906 = sum of:
    0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010929906 = score(doc=93,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The recognition of named entities in Spanish medieval texts presents great complexity, involving specific challenges: First, the complex morphosyntactic characteristics in proper-noun use in medieval texts. Second, the lack of strict orthographic standards. Finally, diachronic and geographical variations in Spanish from the 12th to 15th century. In this period, named entities usually appear as complex text structure. For example, it was frequent to add nicknames and information about the persons role in society and geographic origin. To tackle this complexity, named entity recognition and classification system has been implemented. The system uses contextual cues based on semantics to detect entities and assign a type. Given the occurrence of entities with attached attributes, entity contexts are also parsed to determine entity-type-specific dependencies for these attributes. Moreover, it uses a variant generator to handle the diachronic evolution of Spanish medieval terms from a phonetic and morphosyntactic viewpoint. The tool iteratively enriches its proper lexica, dictionaries, and gazetteers. The system was evaluated on a corpus of over 3,000 manually annotated entities of different types and periods, obtaining F1 scores between 0.74 and 0.87. Attribute annotation was evaluated for a person and role name attributes with an overall F1 of 0.75.

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=119,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has formal relationships with the Library of Congress (LC), Share-VDE, and Linked Data for Production Phase 2 (LD4P2) for work on Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), and PCC institutions have been very active in the exploration of MARC to BIBFRAME conversion processes. This article will review the involvement of PCC in the development of BIBFRAME and examine the work of LC, Share-VDE, and LD4P2 on MARC to BIBFRAME conversion. It will conclude with a discussion of areas for further exploration by the PCC leading up to the creation of PCC conversion specifications and PCC BIBFRAME data.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC): 25 Years Strong and Growing!'.