Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.041197337 = product of:
  0.16478935 = sum of:
    0.08101445 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08101445 = score(doc=5802,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6223308 = fieldWeight in 5802, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5802)
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 5802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=5802,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 5802, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5802)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.020807797 = product of:
  0.08323119 = sum of:
    0.040918473 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040918473 = score(doc=1184,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3143245 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.01206966 = product of:
  0.04827864 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.008268503 = product of:
  0.06614802 = sum of:
    0.06614802 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06614802 = score(doc=1183,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.50813097 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of RIMMF, a software tool developed to improve the orientation and training of catalogers who use Resource Description and Access (RDA) to maintain bibliographic data. The cataloging guidance and instructions of RDA are based on the Functional Requirements conceptual models that are now consolidated in the IFLA Library Reference Model, but many catalogers are applying RDA in systems that have evolved from inventory and text-processing applications developed from older metadata paradigms. The article describes how RIMMF interacts with the RDA Toolkit and RDA Registry to offer cataloger-friendly multilingual data input and editing interfaces.

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 1179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=1179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 1179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1179)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article discusses the practical application of faceted vocabularies to the cataloging of textbooks. Consistent application of faceted vocabularies, specifically Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT) and Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT), would enhance the discovery of these resources. Alternatives to special cases in Subject Heading Manual H 2187 are proposed. A case study demonstrating the application of LCDGT is provided. Figures illustrate the results of the proposed best practices. The article includes four tables that are designed to streamline term assignments. Consistent cataloging of genre and audience prepares legacy records for future automated enhancement.

0.007160733 = product of:
  0.057285864 = sum of:
    0.057285864 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057285864 = score(doc=5801,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4400543 = fieldWeight in 5801, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5801)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Some international libraries are still using the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition revised, for cataloging even though the Library of Congress and other large libraries have retired it in favor of Resource Description and Access. One of these libraries is the National Library of Greece, which consults the Library of Congress database before establishing authorities. There are cultural differences in names and subjects between the Library of Congress and the National Library, but some National Library terms may be more appropriate for users than the Library of Congress-established forms.

0.007160733 = product of:
  0.057285864 = sum of:
    0.057285864 = weight(_text_:libraries in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057285864 = score(doc=125,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4400543 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Library Technical Services have benefited from numerous stimuli. Although initially looked at with suspicion, transitions such as the move from catalog cards to the MARC formats have proven enormously helpful to libraries and their patrons. Linked data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) hold the same promise. Through the conversion of metadata surrogates (cataloging) to linked open data, libraries can represent their resources on the Semantic Web. But in order to provide some form of controlled access to unstructured data, libraries must reach beyond traditional cataloging to new tools such as AI to provide consistent access to a growing world of full-text resources.

0.0066819587 = product of:
  0.05345567 = sum of:
    0.05345567 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05345567 = score(doc=1155,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

While virtual reality (VR) programs are not new, only in recent years have libraries made these systems available for their patrons. Along with the VR systems, more and more programs are being released. These programs range from educational to entertainment. This paper discusses a project created at Mississippi State University Libraries to catalog their purchased VR programs and make them searchable to students and researchers via the OPAC.

0.0062013767 = product of:
  0.049611013 = sum of:
    0.049611013 = weight(_text_:libraries in 717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049611013 = score(doc=717,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3810982 = fieldWeight in 717, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=717)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The circ stats say it all: graphic novels' popularity among library users keeps growing, with more being published (and acquired by libraries) each year. The unique challenges of developing and managing a graphics novels collection have led the Association of Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) to craft this guide, presented under the expert supervision of editor Ballestro, who has worked with comics for more than 35 years. Examining the ever-changing ways that graphic novels are created, packaged, marketed, and released, this resource gathers a range of voices from the field to explore such topics as: a cultural history of comics and graphic novels from their World War II origins to today, providing a solid grounding for newbies and fresh insights for all; catching up on the Big Two's reboots: Marvel's 10 and DC's 4; five questions to ask when evaluating nonfiction graphic novels and 30 picks for a core collection; key publishers and cartoonists to consider when adding international titles; developing a collection that supports curriculum and faculty outreach to ensure wide usage, with catalogers' tips for organizing your collection and improving discovery; real-world examples of how libraries treat graphic novels, such as an in-depth profile of the development of Penn Library's Manga collection; how to integrate the emerging field of graphic medicine into the collection; and specialized resources like The Cartoonists of Color and Queer Cartoonists databases, the open access scholarly journal Comic Grid, and the No Flying, No Tights website. Packed with expert guidance and useful information, this guide will assist technical services staff, catalogers, and acquisition and collection management librarians.

Content

Inhalt: Between the Panels: A Cultural History of Comic Books and Graphic Novels / by Joshua Everett -- Graphic Novel Companies, Reboots, and Numbering / by John Ballestro -- Creating and Developing a Graphic Literature Collection in an Academic Library / by Andrea Kingston -- Non-Fiction Graphic Novels / by Carli Spina -- Fiction Graphic Novels / by Kayla Kuni -- International Comics and Graphic Novels / by Emily Drew, Lucia Serantes, and Amie Wright -- Building a Japanese Manga Collection for Non-Traditional Patrons in an Academic Library / by Molly Desjardins and Michael P. Williams -- Graphic Medicine in Your Library: Ideas and Strategies for Collecting Comics about Healthcare / by Alice Jaggers, Matthew Noe, and Ariel Pomputius -- The Nuts and Bolts of Comics Cataloging / by Allison Bailund, Hallie Clawson, and Staci Crouch -- Teaching and Programming with Graphic Novels in Academic Libraries / by Jacob Gordon and Sarah Kern.

LCSH

Libraries / Special collections / Graphic novels
Libraries / Special collections / Comic books, strips, etc.
Academic libraries / Collection development

Subject

Libraries / Special collections / Graphic novels
Libraries / Special collections / Comic books, strips, etc.
Academic libraries / Collection development

0.006099823 = product of:
  0.048798583 = sum of:
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=1156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Social cataloging websites, such as Goodreads, LibraryThing, and StoryGraph are widely popular with individuals who want to track their reading and read reviews. Goodreads is one of the most popular sites with 90 million registered users as of 2019. This paper studies a Goodreads cataloging rule, NOT A BOOK (NAB), through which users designate items as invalid to the site's scope while preserving some of their metadata. By reviewing NAB, we identify thirteen types of invalid items. We go on to discuss how these item types unevenly reflect the rule itself and the emergence of a "non-book" sense through social cataloging.

0.0058467137 = product of:
  0.04677371 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=698,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The concept of authorship is central to how libraries organize their collections. But libraries do not only collect resources created by individuals, they also collect documents issued by organizations. Library catalogers use the concept of a "corporate body" to treat organizations as authors for the purpose of making their documents discoverable to users. This essay looks at the key features of establishing authorized access points (AAPs) and applying authority control for corporate bodies. It examines how practices with regard to corporate bodies have changed over time and considers the changes catalogers might expect to see in the future.

0.0058467137 = product of:
  0.04677371 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=711,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 711, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=711)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In 2019, Pepperdine Libraries acquired two virtual reality artworks by filmmaker and artist Paisley Smith: Homestay and Unceded Territories. To bring awareness to these pieces, Pepperdine Libraries added these works to the library catalog, creating bibliographic records for both films. There were many challenges and considerations in cataloging virtual reality art, including factors such as the nature of the work, the limits found in Resource Description and Access (RDA) and MARC, and providing access to these works. This paper discusses these topics, as well as provides recommendations for potential future standards for cataloging virtual works.

0.0058467137 = product of:
  0.04677371 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=715,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=5708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=311,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In several author name disambiguation studies, some ethnic name groups such as East Asian names are reported to be more difficult to disambiguate than others. This implies that disambiguation approaches might be improved if ethnic name groups are distinguished before disambiguation. We explore the potential of ethnic name partitioning by comparing performance of four machine learning algorithms trained and tested on the entire data or specifically on individual name groups. Results show that ethnicity-based name partitioning can substantially improve disambiguation performance because the individual models are better suited for their respective name group. The improvements occur across all ethnic name groups with different magnitudes. Performance gains in predicting matched name pairs outweigh losses in predicting nonmatched pairs. Feature (e.g., coauthor name) similarities of name pairs vary across ethnic name groups. Such differences may enable the development of ethnicity-specific feature weights to improve prediction for specific ethic name categories. These findings are observed for three labeled data with a natural distribution of problem sizes as well as one in which all ethnic name groups are controlled for the same sizes of ambiguous names. This study is expected to motive scholars to group author names based on ethnicity prior to disambiguation.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=623)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=1151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper explores the challenges currently faced by music cataloguers, with particular regard to their training and the systems they work with. It asks whether music catalogers feel they have enough support and training to do their work; it investigates the skills they require, and how they might be taught. It also examines whether systems need to be adapted to suit printed music. The project focuses on staff responsible for cataloging printed music at music libraries in the UK (public, academic, legal deposit and specialist). Here, the term "cataloger" refers to any member of staff who catalogs printed music.

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)