Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014242759 = product of:
  0.028485518 = sum of:
    0.028485518 = product of:
      0.11394207 = sum of:
        0.11394207 = weight(_text_:authors in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11394207 = score(doc=1891,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22851472 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Kent State University Libraries' ETD cataloging process features contributions by authors, by the ETDcat application, and by catalogers. Who is doing what, and how much of it is findable in the library catalog? An empirical analysis is performed featuring simple frequencies within the KentLINK catalog, articulated by the use of a newly devised rubric. The researchers sought the degree to which the ETD authors, the applications, and the catalogers can supply accurate, findable metadata. Further development of combinatory cataloging processes is suggested. The method of examining the data and the rubric are provided as a framework for other metadata analysis.

0.011884895 = product of:
  0.02376979 = sum of:
    0.02376979 = product of:
      0.04753958 = sum of:
        0.04753958 = weight(_text_:22 in 162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04753958 = score(doc=162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1755324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 162, 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=162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a

0.011884895 = product of:
  0.02376979 = sum of:
    0.02376979 = product of:
      0.04753958 = sum of:
        0.04753958 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04753958 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1755324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 5.2015 11:08:22

0.010187053 = product of:
  0.020374106 = sum of:
    0.020374106 = product of:
      0.040748212 = sum of:
        0.040748212 = weight(_text_:22 in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040748212 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1755324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2019 19:14:22

0.010071151 = product of:
  0.020142302 = sum of:
    0.020142302 = product of:
      0.08056921 = sum of:
        0.08056921 = weight(_text_:authors in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08056921 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22851472 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.

0.010071151 = product of:
  0.020142302 = sum of:
    0.020142302 = product of:
      0.08056921 = sum of:
        0.08056921 = weight(_text_:authors in 1880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08056921 = score(doc=1880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22851472 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1880)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores the current state of Library Science and library catalogs in Ukraine. It describes conditions that have impacted their development and problems that influence their growth. Particular focus is given to the increase in information access in Ukrainian libraries that has taken place over the last twenty years. The authors describe major projects in the library field and in the field of library cataloging with special attention to the experience of the Library of the National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy."

0.008632416 = product of:
  0.017264832 = sum of:
    0.017264832 = product of:
      0.06905933 = sum of:
        0.06905933 = weight(_text_:authors in 5560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06905933 = score(doc=5560,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22851472 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5560, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5560)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogues can be viewed as the latest manifestation of a tendency in library catalogue history to strive for centralization of access to collections-a single portal for the discovery of library resources. Due to an increasing volume of published materials and the explosion of online information resources during the Internet age, the library does not currently provide centralized access to its various information silos, nor does it provide a user-friendly search and retrieval experience for users whose expectations are shaped by Google and other major commercial Web sites. Searching across library resources is a complicated task, bearing high-attention "transaction costs" for the user, which discourage the use of library resources. Libraries need access systems that minimize complexity, easing discovery and delivery of resources for user populations. Here, the authors review past efforts of centralization of access, consider the potential of next-generation catalogues in the context of this historical tendency toward centralization of access, and describe what goals underlie that centralization.

0.008489211 = product of:
  0.016978422 = sum of:
    0.016978422 = product of:
      0.033956844 = sum of:
        0.033956844 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033956844 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1755324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.00719368 = product of:
  0.01438736 = sum of:
    0.01438736 = product of:
      0.05754944 = sum of:
        0.05754944 = weight(_text_:authors in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05754944 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22851472 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05012591 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This case study demonstrates how competitive usability testing informs the selection and purchase of a next-generation catalogue (NGC) or Web-scale discovery system (WSDS) to enhance a current library catalogue. Using competitive usability techniques, the authors explain how different NGCs and WSDSs solve issues that catalogue users may face when searching for materials in the online catalogue. The goal of this study is to provide a framework that identifies concrete evidence in support of purchase recommendations for an effective system that adequately addresses locally identified issues with catalogue searches. The process of selecting live system implementations from peer institutions is outlined. Steps include surveying library staff about their current library catalogue. Survey results and documented reference questions provided the foundation for user tasks created by testers for use in this study. This multifaceted research design resulted in a case study that captures current issues that users encounter in the discovery and access to library materials and shows how to include competitive usability techniques as part of a purchase rationale while assessing how well a variety of next-generation discovery and access systems address users' issues.