Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05187072 = product of:
  0.20748287 = sum of:
    0.20748287 = weight(_text_:fields in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20748287 = score(doc=1788,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.65650237 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of an analysis of 205 randomly selected records from the OCLC OLUC, to test the assumption that online catalogues have greatly improved subject searching capabilities, over card catalogues, by making other fields in the records searchable as subject access points (SAPs). Results showed considerable overlap (duplication) among the SAPs provided by the title, subject heading and classification number fields. On average, little more than 4 unique, unduplicated access points were found per record. Where title and classification number fields do add some access points not provided by subject headings, the increase is less than many librarians might be expected. Suggests that OPACs might outperform catalogues more in precision than in recall by allowing greater discrimination in searching; terms from different fields may be combined; titles offer greater specifity; searches can be limited by date, language or other criteria

0.017295016 = product of:
  0.069180064 = sum of:
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.017295016 = product of:
  0.069180064 = sum of:
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.015133139 = product of:
  0.060532555 = sum of:
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3656, 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=3656)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.015133139 = product of:
  0.060532555 = sum of:
    0.060532555 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060532555 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170

0.01512896 = product of:
  0.06051584 = sum of:
    0.06051584 = weight(_text_:fields in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06051584 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19147986 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.008647508 = product of:
  0.034590032 = sum of:
    0.034590032 = weight(_text_:22 in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034590032 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2009 19:40:38