Search (25 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[1980 TO 1990}
  1. Packer, K.H.; Michaud, J.M.: ¬The use and users of COM catalogues at the University of Toronto and the Mississauga Library System (1983) 0.00
    0.001674345 = product of:
      0.00334869 = sum of:
        0.00334869 = product of:
          0.00669738 = sum of:
            0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00669738 = score(doc=296,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Three studies were made of the use of COM catalogues at the University of Toronto and the Mississauga Library System: unobtrusive observations, structured interviews, and a timed-search experiment in reel, fiche and card catalogues. The reel catalogue was found to be the overwhelming favourite, almost as popular in the public library as in the academic library, where 82% of the users reported it to be their preferred form of catalogue. However, for nearly all test questions and searcher types in the timed-search experiment, successful searches required less time in the card catalogue than in either form of the COM catalogues.
    Type
    a
  2. Fuller, E.E.: Variation in personal names in works represented in the catalog (1989) 0.00
    0.001674345 = product of:
      0.00334869 = sum of:
        0.00334869 = product of:
          0.00669738 = sum of:
            0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00669738 = score(doc=439,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Recent research suggests that many authority records might be unnecessary in online systems with sophisticated programming. One problem in determining which names can be used without full authority records and the references they provide is that there has been little study of the names themselves, and patterns of variation are unknown. In a random sample of persons with entries in the University of Chicago library general catalog, more than 80% had names appearing in only one form in all works. The study also catagorizes the differences among the forms of those names that do appear in more than one way.
    Type
    a
  3. Anderson, J.D.: Catalog file display principles and the new filing rules (1981) 0.00
    0.0014351527 = product of:
      0.0028703054 = sum of:
        0.0028703054 = product of:
          0.005740611 = sum of:
            0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.005740611 = score(doc=278,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    File display-the way in which catalog records are arranged for display-is a principal determinant of access to printed library catalogs, whether they be on cards, on microform, or in book form. In 1980, both the American Library Association and the Library of Congress published new sets of filing rules which represent significant departures from traditional library catalog arrangement in North America. These new rules are analyzed and compared with each other and with their predecessors, the 1956 LC and the 1968 ALA filing rules, on the basis of fundamental attributes of files and filing: (1) the symbols considered in arranging records together with the filing values assigned to them, and (2) the underlying basis of filing-symbols or concepts. Numerous examples of the very different sequences which result in the application of these codes are provided and discussed. The purpose of this paper is to help clarify filing options and thereby to help librarians make more informed choices for the display of their own catalog files.
    Type
    a
  4. Binder, W.: Quo vadis Online-Katalog? : Resümees und Zukunftsperspektiven (1989) 0.00
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = product of:
          0.0054123 = sum of:
            0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0054123 = score(doc=366,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 366, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=366)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  5. Hurowitz, R.; Kalinsky, K.; McDonald, D.R.; Deventer, B.V.: Future catalogs and bibliographic links at Stanford University Libraries (1981) 0.00
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = product of:
          0.0054123 = sum of:
            0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0054123 = score(doc=272,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 272, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=272)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a