Search (239 results, page 2 of 12)

0.053888097 = product of:
  0.107776195 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=3267,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=3267,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS), along with astronomy's journals and data centers (a collaboration dubbed URANIA), has developed a distributed online digital library which has become the dominant means by which astronomers search, access, and read their technical literature. Digital libraries permit the easy accumulation of a new type of bibliometric measure: the number of electronic accesses ("reads") of individual articles. By combining data from the text, citation, and reference databases with data from the ADS readership logs we have been able to create second-order bibliometric operators, a customizable class of collaborative filters that permits substantially improved accuracy in literature queries. Using the ADS usage logs along with membership statistics from the International Astronomical Union and data an the population and gross domestic product (GDP), we have developed an accurate model for worldwide basic research where the number of scientists in a country is proportional to the GDP of that country, and the amount of basic research done by a country is proportional to the number of scientists in that country times that country's per capita GDP. We introduce the concept of utility time to measure the impact of the ADS/ URANIA and the electronic astronomical library an astronomical research. We find that in 2002 it amounted to the equivalent of 736 full-time researchers, or $250 million, or the astronomical research done in France.

0.052858673 = product of:
  0.105717346 = sum of:
    0.06497275 = weight(_text_:library in 4585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06497275 = score(doc=4585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4930085 = fieldWeight in 4585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4585)
    0.0407446 = product of:
      0.0814892 = sum of:
        0.0814892 = weight(_text_:22 in 4585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0814892 = score(doc=4585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

First published in 1993, this book presents a new process approach to library and information services.

Date

25.11.2005 18:58:22

0.052799337 = product of:
  0.10559867 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=4759,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=4759,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Reports on the performance of five free digital reference services (DRS) in answering ten reference questions. The first five questions were of a simple, factual, nature which should have ready answers. The second set of five were based on the subject of film studies. The answers to these questions varied from a simple one- or two-word response, to more extensive information, such as question 10. This study notes the use of various delivery methods for DRS: chat, Web forms, e-mail. It outlines the individual and co-operative approaches; and the challenges posed to the academic libraries by the so-called expert services. This study also intends to check if the services would ask for further information to ensure accuracy or simply provide the best answer based on the first query. It finds that there is often a trade-off between speed of response and quality or accuracy of response.

Source

Library review. 53(2004) no.1, S.17-23

0.052653216 = product of:
  0.10530643 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=46,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=46,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article seeks to address the following questions: Why do certain people, who are fully information literate with printed materials, become hesitant and even reluctant when it comes to finding something on the Internet? And why do we, information professionals, find it difficult to support them adequately? Mature users of digital information are often skeptical about the value of the Internet as a source for professional information. Over the years much has been achieved, but many prophecies of the experts on digitalization from the early hours still have not yet been fulfilled. Mature users do possess all skills needed to be digital-information literate, but they need to be assisted in specific areas where those skills are insufficient. They tend to blame themselves even if shortcomings in accessibility of digital sources and computer errors obstruct their search. Operating hardware requires a dexterity that can only be acquired by experience. Instruction should be hands-on; demonstration is far less effective. Special attention should be given to reading and interpreting navigation information on the screen and to the search strategies the Internet requires. Use of imagination and trial-and-error methods are to be recommended in this respect.

Source

Library trends. 51(2002) no.2, S.199-209

0.05257032 = product of:
  0.10514064 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.059197973 = product of:
      0.11839595 = sum of:
        0.11839595 = weight(_text_:project in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11839595 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5596283 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Journal of library administration. 34(2001) nos.3/4, S.345-353

0.051531833 = product of:
  0.103063665 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
    0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05136547 = score(doc=33,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article examines the question, "What differences do libraries and librarians make?" primarily from the perspective of geographical communities. The article first states the reasons why this is an essential research question and describes the contributions of current public library planning tools to the determination of impact. It then takes a broad look at the framework that is essential for the intellectual development of this topic and the ability to answer the question, including methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks that will be discussed throughout. While the authors pose this research problem as an evaluation question, this article examines contributions of research in several areas--particularly professional practice, especially reference research that has been informed by qualitative methods--to its solution. Finally, the authors examine approaches to studying context as a framework for determining the impacts of library services and include a brief presentation of findings from a recent study of "How Libraries and Librarians Help: Context-Centered Methods for Evaluating Public Library Efforts at Bridging the Digital Divide and Building Community," funded by the Institute of Museums and Library Services (IMLS).

Source

Library trends. 51(2003) no.4, S.541-570

0.047041588 = product of:
  0.094083175 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=2017,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=2017,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This article is an edited version of a report commissioned by the British Library and JISC to identify how the specialist researchers of the future (those born after 1993) are likely to access and interact with digital resources in five to ten years' time. The purpose is to investigate the impact of digital transition on the information behaviour of the Google Generation and to guide library and information services to anticipate and react to any new or emerging behaviours in the most effective way. Design/methodology/approach - The study was virtually longitudinal and is based on a number of extensive reviews of related literature, survey data mining and a deep log analysis of a British Library and a JISC web site intended for younger people. Findings - The study shows that much of the impact of ICTs on the young has been overestimated. The study claims that although young people demonstrate an apparent ease and familiarity with computers, they rely heavily on search engines, view rather than read and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the web. Originality/value - The paper reports on a study that overturns the common assumption that the "Google generation" is the most web-literate.

0.045798417 = product of:
  0.091596834 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=1883,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 1883, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1883)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=1883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1883, 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=1883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Bibliotheken befinden sich weltweit im Wandel. Der allgemeine Trend, Informationen in zunehmendem Maße (oder gar ausschließlich) aus dem Internet zu beziehen, hat Konsequenzen für die Konzeption des bibliothekarischen Informationsdienstes. Viele Bibliotheken bieten bereits einen digitalen Auskunftsdienst an. Zumeist wird dieser jedoch von einzelnen Bibliotheken bereitgestellt, die dadurch auf synergetische Effekte und Vorteile durch Zusammenarbeit verzichten. Abhilfe schaffen Informationsverbünde, in denen mehrere Bibliotheken arbeitsteilig digitalen Auskunftsdienst anbieten. Die Autorin Sonja Härkönen gibt einen Überblick über die Entwicklung solcher Digital Reference Konsortien in den USA, klärt die Begrifflichkeiten und stellt die verschiedenen Formen des Digital Reference Service vor. Darauf aufbauend diskutiert sie anhand von Praxisbeispielen die Vor- und Nachteile verschiedener konzeptioneller Modelle. Organisatorische und strukturelle Anregungen mit Blick auf das Bibliothekssystem in Deutschland zum Aufbau von kooperativen digitalen Auskunftsdiensten runden die vorliegende Untersuchung ab. Das Buch richtet sich an Entscheidungsträger in Bibliotheken und Verbänden, sowie an Projektmitarbeiter und -manager, die sich mit dem Thema des digitalen Auskunftsdienstes befassen.

Date

22. 8.2009 19:50:27

0.044807043 = product of:
  0.059742723 = sum of:
    0.021540914 = weight(_text_:digital in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021540914 = score(doc=4818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10895388 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
    0.013535989 = weight(_text_:library in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013535989 = score(doc=4818,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.1027101 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 4818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=4818,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 4818, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.11, S.1238-1239 (D.A. Stirling): "Virtual reference services are becoming an important tool as librarians strive to stay current with patron's information demands. In 2001, the Washington State Library initiated the Statewide Virtual Reference Project (SVRP) to support electronic reference services throughout the state. An element of that project, termed "Anytime, Anywhere Answers," was designed to train librarians in the effective use of virtual reference services. The results of that project, including precautions and pitfalls, as well as the curriculum used in the project, are recounted in this book. The book begins with a short review of the Washington State experience with virtual reference training (VRT) and the means by which the guide can be used. The very first page begins with an example of a virtual reference session gone wrong and the authors set the tone for the remainder of the book, which decries the "Shazam! You're a virtual librarian" phenomenon. The second chapter provides a thorough overview of the Washington State SVRP, including planning elements, budgeting, convening of focus groups, and training development. Perhaps the most important information in this chapter is the identification of eight key skills, aptitudes, and knowledge critical in online environments: chat skills, online reference interview, internet searching, database searching, collaborative browsing, customizing scripts, methods for evaluating success, and coping with technical glitches. Building an the aforementioned eight key skills, Chapter Three of the book examines the "core competencies" needed for virtual reference. These 14 competencies are wide ranging and clearly demanding of the librarian training in VRT. In addition, the authors expound upon the eight key skills, aptitudes, and knowledge identified in Chapter Two. Constructivist learning, which has garnered controversy in recent years, was identified as the learning platform for Washington State's SVRP and is the subject of the book's fourth chapter. The authors explain why this learning Format was chosen-primarily because VRT developers felt that participants would learn better by reaching their own conclusions. In this case, constructivist learning involved virtual field trips, secret patron activities, and weekly chat meetings. The challenge of developing the SVRP is described in Chapter Five, with a focus an descriptions of in-person training, online training, and individual and collaborative learning. While earlier chapters discuss theory, practical issues involved in developing and maintaining a VRT program are the subject of Chapters Six through Nine. Important issues, such as curriculum development, training activities, online behavior, and post-program assessment, are examined in detail. Many of the issues examined in these chapters are those that information professionals are faced with an a regular basis. In discussing curriculum development, the authors describe the important questions that need to be asked, as well as important issues such as identifying and qualifying trainers and staff, course timing, determining curriculum efficacy, methods of training delivery, and methods of evaluation.
The real core of the SRVP, that is, the VRT training activities actually utilized by Washington State, are presented in Chapter Seven in roughly the same order as they took place in the course (train the trainer, orientation, chat practice, multitasking skills, virtual field trips, secret patron, transcript review, checking out the competition, policy and procedure review, sharing via a discussion list, and online meetings). Most interestingly, Chapter Eight deals with behavior, an issue rarely discussed in the context of librarianship, let alone providing reference services. As stated by the authors, "the most difficult aspect of digital reference service involves incorporating model reference interview techniques into an online transaction" (p. 74). The SVRP utilized an "online secret patron scenario" as a training tool that helped the student get the question straight, kept the customer informed, and provided the information required by the patron. The final chapter of the book reviews the important tasks of evaluation, modification, and follow-up. To that end, evaluative material is described and linked to Appendix A (assessment tools). In addition, evaluative tasks such as trainer debriefings and consultation with others participating in the SVRP are described. Finally, the chapter includes examples of unexpected consequences experienced in evaluating VRT services (from total inability to handle online transactions to poor marketing or branding of online services). Many useful appendices are included in this book. Appendix A provides examples of several assessment tools used during the "Anytime, Anywhere Answers" program. Appendix B consists of actual transcripts (edited) designed to illustrate good and bad virtual reference transactions. The transcripts illustrate transactions involving helping with homework, source citing, providing an opinion, suggesting print materials, and clarifying a question. This appendix should be required reading as it provides real-world examples of VRT in action. Appendix C is a copy of a VRT field trip questionnaire. The next appendix, like Appendix B, should be required reading as it includes an actual transcript from seven secret patron scenarios. A policies and procedures checklist is provided in Appendix E. Yet another critical source of information is presented in Appendix F, online meeting transcript. This transcript is the result of an online meeting conducted during a VRSP training class held in 2003. According to the authors, it is an example of the positive working relationship developed during a five-week learning course. The remaining appendices (G through 1) present information about support materials used in the VSRP, the VSRP budget, and trainer notes and tips. Clearly, VRT is a skill and resource that information professionals need to embrace, and this book does a fine job of outlining the essentials. It is apparent that the Washington State experience with VRT was a pioneering venture and is a model that other information professionals may seek to embrace, if not emulate, in developing their own VRT programs. However, this book is not a "complete guide" to VRT. There is too rapid development in virtual environments for any one to claim such an achievement. However, it is likely the most "complete" guide to the Washington State experience that will be published; therefore, this book should serve as a thorough and revelatory guide to VRT for several years to come."

Imprint

Chicago, IL : American Library Association

0.04470687 = product of:
  0.08941374 = sum of:
    0.06564606 = weight(_text_:library in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06564606 = score(doc=2854,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4981175 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=2854,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Developments in information technology have led to changes in the mode of delivery of library services, and in the perceptions of the role of librarians in the information-seeking context. In particular, the proliferation of electronic resources has led to the emergence of new service paradigms and new roles for librarians. The Gateway Library at Penn State University (PSU) is an electronic library in transition, with new technology-based services evolving to address the ever growing and changing needs of the academic community. It facilitates access to and navigation of electronic resources in an integrated technology environment.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.217-226

0.04124941 = product of:
  0.08249882 = sum of:
    0.036556147 = weight(_text_:digital in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036556147 = score(doc=1175,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.18490088 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=1175,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Much progress has been made in aligning library services with changing (and increasingly digital and networked) research and learning environments. At times, however, this progress has been uneven, fragmented, and reactive. As libraries continue to engage with an ever-shifting information landscape, it is apparent that their efforts would be facilitated by a shared view of how library services should be organized and surfaced in these new settings and contexts. Recent discussions in a variety of areas underscore this point: * Institutional repositories: what is the role of the library in collecting, managing, and preserving institutional scholarly output, and what services should be offered to faculty and students in this regard? * Metasearch: how can the fragmented pieces of library collections be brought together to simplify and improve the search experience of the user? * E-learning and course management systems: how can library services be lifted out of traditional library environments and inserted into the emerging workflows of "e-scholars" and "e-learners"? * Exposing library collections to search engines: how can libraries surface their collections in the general Web search environment, and how can users be provisioned with better tools to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape? In each case, there is as yet no shared picture of the library to bring to bear on these questions; there is little consensus on the specific library services that should be expected in these environments, how they should be organized, and how they should be presented.
Libraries have not been idle in the face of the changes re-shaping their environments: in fact, much work is underway and major advances have already been achieved. But these efforts lack a unifying framework, a means for libraries, as a community, to gather the strands of individual projects and weave them into a cohesive whole. A framework of this kind would help in articulating collective expectations, assessing progress, and identifying critical gaps. As the information landscape continually shifts and changes, a framework would promote the design and implementation of flexible, interoperable library systems that can respond more quickly to the needs of libraries in serving their constituents. It will provide a port of entry for organizations outside the library domain, and help them understand the critical points of contact between their services and those of libraries. Perhaps most importantly, a framework would assist libraries in strategic planning. It would provide a tool to help them establish priorities, guide investment, and anticipate future needs in uncertain environments. It was in this context, and in recognition of efforts already underway to align library services with emerging information environments, that the Digital Library Federation (DLF) in 2005 sponsored the formation of the Service Framework Group (SFG) [1] to consider a more systematic, community-based approach to aligning the functions of libraries with increasing automation in fulfilling the needs of information environments. The SFG seeks to understand and model the research library in today's environment, by developing a framework within which the services offered by libraries, represented both as business logic and computer processes, can be understood in relation to other parts of the institutional and external information landscape. This framework will help research institutions plan wisely for providing the services needed to meet the current and emerging information needs of their constituents. A service framework is a tool for documenting a shared view of library services in changing environments; communicating it among libraries and others, and applying it to best advantage in meeting library goals. It is a means of focusing attention and organizing discussion. It is not, however, a substitute for innovation and creativity. It does not supply the answers, but facilitates the process by which answers are sought, found, and applied. This paper discusses the SFG's vision of a service framework for libraries, its approach to developing the framework, and the group's work agenda going forward.

0.040683694 = product of:
  0.08136739 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=704,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 704, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=704)
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=704,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 704, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=704)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Changing the teaching media from chalkboard to computer-based does not only develop IT-awareness among teaching staff but also enhance their readiness to teach and quality of teaching. As a result, the students pay more attention to the lectures and in the long run students get better knowledge and understanding about the course. In the developing countries reading habit is still a practice done by quite a few people. The changing of teaching media as well as the shift from teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning has changed the way students acquire knowledge and make use of the library and multimedia facilities. Gadjah Mada University has been working hard to change the method of teaching by helping the teaching staff develop IT-based teaching materials and put them on the intranet; making teaching material databases available through the digital library; and providing easier access to the library users. In addition, IM text messaging, blogs and mailinglist have been the media to discuss and share ideas and knowledge among lecturers and students too.

Content

Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 133 - Academic and Research Libraries with Information Literacy

0.03968499 = product of:
  0.07936998 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 4319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=4319,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 4319, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4319)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 4319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=4319,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4319, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4319)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Seit Oktober 2004 nimmt Die Deutsche Bibliothek als eine von fünf Institutionen am neu eingerichteten virtuellen Auskunftsdienst InfoPoint teil. Weitere Kooperationspartner sind die Stadtbücherei Frankfurt am Main, die Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg, die USA-Bibliothek der Universität Mainz und die HeBIS-Verbundzentrale als Gruppenadministrator und -koordinator. InfoPoint ist Teil des globalen Informationsnetzwerks QuestionPoint. Ausgangspunkt für die Gründung dieser Onlineauskunft für die Rhein-Main-Region war ein von Diana Kresh (Leiterin der Public Service Collections der Library of Congress in Washington) im August 2003 in der Deutschen Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main gehaltener Vortrag zu dem Thema »Reference in a Digital World«, Darin stellte sie den Auskunftsservice QuestionPoint vor, der aus dem Projekt »Collaborative Digital Reference Service« der Library of Congress (LoC) hervorgegangen ist und begeisterte mit dem Thema sofort alle Anwesenden. Im Herbst 2003 gründete sich daraufhin die »QuestionPoint-Arbeitsgruppe Rhein-Main«, die im Mai 2004 ihr Konzept für einen virtuellen Auskunftsdienst den Entscheidungsträgern der einzelnen Teilnehmerbibliotheken vorlegte. Im Juni 2004 erfolgte die offizielle Gründung eines Konsortiums und im Oktober fiel der Startschuss zur Betriebsaufnahme von InfoPoint. QuestionPoint (QP) ist ein von der LoC und dem Bibliotheksdienstleister Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) gemeinschaftlich entwickelter Onlineauskunftsservice mit dem Ziel, ein weltweites Netzwerk von kooperierenden Bibliotheken zu bilden, um auf das breite Wissensspektrum der beteiligten Mitgliedsinstitutionen zugreifen zu können. Verantwortlich für die bibliothekarischen Anforderungen und Vorgaben ist die LoC, die technische Realisierung liegt bei OCLC, wo auch die Datenbank des Dienstes lokalisiert ist. Grundlage bildet eine leistungsfähige Software mit breitem Funktionsspektrum, die sowohl für die anfragenden Nutzerinnen und Nutzer als auch für die Auskunft gebenden Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare alle Stufen und Schritte eines virtuellen Auskunftsvorgangs dokumentiert und transparent macht. Darüber hinaus können auf Wunsch moderne Kommunikationstechniken wie Chat und Webcams innerhalb des Systems ergänzend eingebunden werden. Mit Stand Februar 2005 sind 955 Institutionen aus zahlreichen Ländern weltweit an QP beteiligt. Darunter befinden sich die verschiedensten Bibliothekstypen, wie Nationalbibliotheken, Hochschulbibliotheken, öffentliche Bibliotheken, Spezialbibliotheken sowie zahlreiche nicht bibliothekarische Einrichtungen. Folgende in Deutschland ansässige Institutionen sind neben dem InfoPoint-Konsortium an OP beteiligt: Die Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften Kiel, die Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, die Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin, das Informations-, Kommunikations- und Medienzentrum Cottbus, die Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz sowie die U.S. Army Europe Regional Library Heidelberg.

0.03968499 = product of:
  0.07936998 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=1200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=1200,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In April 2002, the dominant Internet search engine, GoogleT, introduced a beta version of its expert service, Google Answers, with little fanfare. Almost immediately the buzz within the information community focused on implications for reference librarians. Google had already been lauded as the cheaper and faster alternative for finding information, and declining reference statistics and Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) use in academic libraries had been attributed in part to its popularity. One estimate suggests that the Google search engine handles more questions in a day and a half than all the libraries in the country provide in a year. Indeed, Craig Silverstein, Google's Director of Technology, indicated that the raison d'être for the search engine was to "seem as smart as a reference librarian," even as he acknowledged that this goal was "hundreds of years away". Bill Arms had reached a similar conclusion regarding the more nuanced reference functions in a thought-provoking article in this journal on automating digital libraries. But with the launch of Google Answers, the power of "brute force computing" and simple algorithms could be combined with human intelligence to represent a market-driven alternative to library reference services. Google Answers is part of a much larger trend to provide networked reference assistance. Expert services have sprung up in both the commercial and non-profit sector. Libraries too have responded to the Web, providing a suite of services through the virtual reference desk (VRD) movement, from email reference to chat reference to collaborative services that span the globe. As the Internet's content continues to grow and deepen - encompassing over 40 million web sites - it has been met by a groundswell of services to find and filter information. These services include an extensive range from free to fee-based, cost-recovery to for-profit, and library providers to other information providers - both new and traditional. As academic libraries look towards the future in a dynamic and competitive information landscape, what implications do these services have for their programs, and what can be learned from them to improve library offerings? This paper presents the results of a modest study conducted by Cornell University Library (CUL) to compare and contrast its digital reference services with those of Google Answers. The study provided an opportunity for librarians to shift their focus from fearing the impact of Google, as usurper of the library's role and diluter of the academic experience, to gaining insights into how Google's approach to service development and delivery has made it so attractive.

0.039348863 = product of:
  0.078697726 = sum of:
    0.050791536 = weight(_text_:library in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050791536 = score(doc=2999,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38540247 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
    0.027906192 = product of:
      0.055812385 = sum of:
        0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055812385 = score(doc=2999,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The "teaching librarian" or "librarian as teacher" is a professional role that has been discussed in the literature of library and information science in recent decades, particularly in relation to bibliographic instruction and information literacy development. This paper reports on a small-scale research project, undertaken in 2002, that investigated the demand for library professionals with knowledge of or skills in instructional techniques and strategies. The project was based on an extensive literature review, plus content analysis of library and information science job advertisements on the international LIBJOBS listserv. The literature review has been updated for this BOBCATSSS paper, as have aspects of the content analysis, in order to provide delegates with more recent information. The idea of a teaching role for librarians is far from new. Michael Lorenzen (2002) has traced academic library-based instruction as far back as the seventeenth century when German academic libraries provided instructional programmes for library users. In academic and school libraries in the nineteenth century it usually took the form of "library orientation" - making sure that students and faculty knew how to find the books and other material for their courses. In the United States, some American university librarians were lecturing to students as early as the 1880s (Lorenzen, 2002). In nineteenth and early twentieth century public libraries, library instruction often took the form of literature promotion or reading promotion activities for children and young people, and even of "lessons" on how to look after books, right down to the need for washing hands before handling books. The introduction of card catalogues and classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification resulted in a need for user education in all kinds of libraries, with sessions based on topics such as "The card catalogue: The key to the library" and "How to find a book on the shelves". The introduction of automated catalogues from the 1960s, and later, databases on CD-ROMs, online information services for end users, and the Internet, have increased the need and demand for formal and informal user education, regardless of the type and size of library. Indeed, there is no doubt that interest in library-based instruction has increased in recent decades: on the basis of an analysis of the literature related to the instructional role of librarians, Edwards (1994) noted that "during the past quarter century, interest and concern for library instruction has grown dramatically", while Marcum said in 2002 that "Over the past decade ... information literacy has emerged as a central purpose for librarians, particularly academic librarians".

0.03884365 = product of:
  0.0776873 = sum of:
    0.042804558 = weight(_text_:library in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042804558 = score(doc=663,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32479787 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
    0.034882743 = product of:
      0.069765486 = sum of:
        0.069765486 = weight(_text_:project in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069765486 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose. To convey the initial findings of Biblio.for.mEDA, an EU project exploring lifelong learning provision for adults in public libraries set in the context of a literature review regarding support for learners in public libraries. Design/methodology/approach. A total of 20 public library authorities in England agreed to participate in a survey of the resources, support and staffing to facilitate lifelong learning in public libraries. The data were analysed manually and reported here, including current provision for learners, collaborative working, plans for the future and consideration of the impacts on staff. The findings are reported in the context of other research exploring learning in public libraries and consideration of authority's web sites, annual library plans and position statements. Findings. Depicts current lifelong learning provision in public libraries and the challenges faced by staff in supporting learners. The varying degrees of learner support provided by library services are described including assistance for adults with basic skills needs. Research limitations/implications. The findings are indicative as only 20 public library managers completed the lifelong learning survey in the UK. Practical implications. Provides an extensive review of the literature pertaining to learning in public libraries. Results of the project provide a useful snapshot of current lifelong learning activity and the ways in which services are working to support adults wishing to learn. Originality/value. This paper offers recent research results and analysis of a pressing public library issue for practitioners.

0.03747444 = product of:
  0.07494888 = sum of:
    0.05521622 = weight(_text_:library in 1232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05521622 = score(doc=1232,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.41897663 = fieldWeight in 1232, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1232)
    0.019732658 = product of:
      0.039465316 = sum of:
        0.039465316 = weight(_text_:project in 1232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039465316 = score(doc=1232,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 1232, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Library users who are Web users expect customization and interactivity. MyLibrary is a Cornell University Library initiative to provide numerous personalized library services to Cornell University students, faculty, and staff. Currently, it consists of MyLinks, a tool for collecting and organizing resources for private use by a patron, and MyUpdates, a tool to help scholars stay informed of new resources provided by the library. This article provides an overview of the MyLibrary project, explains the rationale for the development of the service in the library, briefly discusses the hardware and software used for the service, and suggests some of the directions for future developments of the MyLibrary system. MyYahoo!, MyCNN, MyBookmarks, MyThis and MyThat. Internet users have demanded a personal face to the World Wide Web, and Web portals and information providers have responded. Why not MyLibrary? The Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) has defined MyLibrary-like services as the number one trend "worth keeping an eye on". "Library users who are Web users, a growing group," the experts agree, "expect customization, interactivity, and customer support. Approaches that are library-focused instead of user-focused will be increasingly irrelevant." In response to the needs of web-savvy patrons, the Cornell University Library (CUL) implemented a MyLibrary service this year, making finding and using library resources easier than ever. MyLibrary is an "umbrella" service for two new products: MyLinks and MyUpdates. Other products are in development. MyLibrary's MyLinks is a tool for collecting and organizing resources for private use by a patron. These resources may or may not be "official" Cornell University Library resources. Our patrons best understand this service as a "traveling set of bookmarks". Most patrons of the library use a variety of machines to access Internet resources. For example, you may have a computer at home and one at work. Why should you create your bookmarks twice, or carry around a diskette containing your bookmarks? Students who rely on lab computers never know which machine they will use next. With MyLinks, a patron's favorite sites are just a click away from any machine.

0.037334766 = product of:
  0.07466953 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3821,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=3821,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Key terms related to information searching and search models are defined. A historic context is provided to illustrate the evolution of the four main digital environments that users interact with in their search process to offer readers background information regarding the transition from manual information systems to computer-based information retrieval (IR) systems, as well as the transition from intermediary searching to end-user searching. Emphasis is placed on the review of different levels of information searching from search tactics/moves, search strategies, and usage patterns, to search models and associated factors in relation to task, user knowledge structure, IR system design, and social-organization context. Search models are further classified into two types, with one type illustrating information search process (ISP) and the other type emphasizing the factors that influence the process. In addition, unsolved problems and future research are discussed and suggested.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.03693497 = product of:
  0.14773989 = sum of:
    0.14773989 = weight(_text_:digital in 2177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14773989 = score(doc=2177,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.74726796 = fieldWeight in 2177, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2177)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A research agenda for the study of digital reference is presented. The agenda stems from a research symposium held at Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts in August 2002. The agenda defines digital reference as "the use of human intermediation to answer questions in a digital environment." The agenda also proposes the central research question in digital reference: "How can human expertise be effectively and efficiently incorporated into information systems to answer user questions?" The definition and question are used to outline a research agenda centered an how the exploration of digital reference relates to other fields of inquiry.

0.036556147 = product of:
  0.14622459 = sum of:
    0.14622459 = weight(_text_:digital in 2562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14622459 = score(doc=2562,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.7396035 = fieldWeight in 2562, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2562)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes a study conducted to determine the paths digital reference services take through a general process model of asynchronous digital reference. A survey based on the general process model was conducted; each decision point in this model provided the basis for at least one question. Common, uncommon, and wished-for practices are identified, as well as correlations between characteristics of services and the practices employed by those services. Identification of such trends has implications for the development of software tools for digital reference. This study presents a snapshot of the state-of-the-art in digital reference as of late 2001- early 2002, and validates the general process model of asynchronous digital reference.