Search (82 results, page 1 of 5)

0.10375099 = product of:
  0.20750198 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
    0.069180064 = weight(_text_:22 in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069180064 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 695, 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=695)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

One of the most common errors in cataloguing library materials involves miscoding of the nonfiling indicator of title fields. Notes the extent of the problem and its negative effect on searching in the library's online catalogue and surveys how librarians have approached solutions to the problems. Describes how the major library automation system address this problem

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15

0.07781324 = product of:
  0.15562648 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Enhancing content description of specialized resources, particularly astronomical resources, is a matter that is still unresolved in library and information science. In this paper, the authors outline deficiencies in some fields and elements of cataloging standards for description of historical astronomical resources, mainly star atlases and catalogs. Furthermore, they review their recent proposal of astronomical parameters for a better description and propose an approach for accommodating these parameters in the current criteria of MARC 21, the International Standard Bibliographic Description, and Resource Description and Access. Fourteen new parameters are considered, and recommendations are provided to standards developers for the addition of elements to accommodate attributes of celestial cartographic resources. This would improve bibliographic records for such resources in astronomical libraries' OPACs, which will have a beneficial effect on information retrieval.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

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

0.0432256 = product of:
  0.1729024 = sum of:
    0.1729024 = weight(_text_:fields in 7237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1729024 = score(doc=7237,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.54708534 = fieldWeight in 7237, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7237)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate judgements made by searchers of online catalogues by using transaction log analysis to associate online catalogue searchmethods with decisions so as to retrieve location information. The study used the Mainframe Interface to Libraries Online (MILO), an interface to the Illinois Library Computer Systems Office (ILCSO) online union catalogue for the 45 academic libraries belonging to ILCSO. MILO provides access to a bibliographic database and directly links to another database with circulation and location records. As the latter database only provides location and circulation status, searchers' decisions to make links to such data are seen as an indication that the records being linked represent potentially useful material. Via a transaction log analysis, the linked location records were associated wiht the access points used to retrieve them in order to analyze the value and problems of searchers' uses of specific access points. Transaction logs were analyzed for a 38-day sample of the 1994 logs. Counting of records retrieved through the use of multiple access points (making the total greater than 100%), subject fields were used to access over 30%, author fields to access over 19%, and title fields to access over 51% of all records linked to location information. Other fields were used to retrieve very small percentages of linked records

0.042791158 = product of:
  0.17116463 = sum of:
    0.17116463 = weight(_text_:fields in 2517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17116463 = score(doc=2517,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5415868 = fieldWeight in 2517, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2517)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the function and problems of the traditional card catalogue compared with a computerised catalogue. Examines library cataloguing with the computer, linked to rules for subject cataloguing, as well as the oppor-tunities offered by computerised title entries, the transfer of data from outside, data base structure and indexing. Also looks at techniques for searching catalogues with computers, including search rules with Boolean operators, searches restricted to specific fields of free search in all fields for a vague concept. Other topics cover the essential principles of the OPAC, its information functions, mail box function and hardware configuration.

0.034590032 = product of:
  0.13836013 = sum of:
    0.13836013 = weight(_text_:22 in 7403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13836013 = score(doc=7403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7403)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.21-31

0.034590032 = product of:
  0.13836013 = sum of:
    0.13836013 = weight(_text_:22 in 7483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13836013 = score(doc=7483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7483)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Program. 22(1988), S.133-142

0.03458048 = product of:
  0.13832192 = sum of:
    0.13832192 = weight(_text_:fields in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13832192 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.43766826 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents the results of research carried out to discover whether or not the ability to search an online catalogue using keywords is a reasonably alternative to a built-in cross reference structure for variant forms. MARC records were checked against LoC authorities for references from non-preferred headings. All keywords in these references were then compared, and matched, when possible, with keywords in any MARC fields

0.030573556 = product of:
  0.122294225 = sum of:
    0.122294225 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.122294225 = score(doc=4368,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:36:10
22. 1.2000 19:41:58

0.030266277 = product of:
  0.12106511 = sum of:
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bulletin des bibliothèques de France. 34(1989) no.1, S.22-47

0.030266277 = product of:
  0.12106511 = sum of:
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Eine Replik zu Auer: OPAC und Zeichensatz (Mitteilungen der VÖB 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22)

0.030266277 = product of:
  0.12106511 = sum of:
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 7584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=7584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7584)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekare. 46(1993) H.2, S.21-22

0.030266277 = product of:
  0.12106511 = sum of:
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.10, S.326-330

0.030266277 = product of:
  0.12106511 = sum of:
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 4513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=4513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4513)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

23. 3.2000 15:22:58

0.03025792 = product of:
  0.12103168 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 4636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=4636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 4636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4636)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Analyses the technical features of the 5 main search fields of the OPAC run by Bologna University's interlibrary centre (CIB), part of the National Library Service (SBN). The CIB links about 100 academic and civil library collections on the humanities, social sciences, and science subjects. With the aid of Home Page / Helpline displays, examines how OPAC search procedures are carried out by author, title, subject, ISBN, or single library. Also explains the data filtering methods used. The CIB will soon broaden its OPAC search strategies by adopting the Florence University library OPAC research structure

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3373, 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=3373)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.025942523 = product of:
  0.10377009 = sum of:
    0.10377009 = weight(_text_:22 in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10377009 = score(doc=4106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4106, 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=4106)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.02593536 = product of:
  0.10374144 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 7327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=7327,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 7327, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7327)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the design and continuing development of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Information Workstation, which provides the primary, in-library user acces to ILLINET Online Plus, the library's extended OPAC system. Briefly describes the automated library information resources and information processing environment as they have influenced the design and development of the Library Information Workstation. Discusses its philosophy and approach in the context of relevant information access issues and user needs and requirements. Features of the current Library Information Workstation implementation are then described using illustrations focused particularly on integrated access to local (resident on individual workstations) information fields and an integrated end user interface for bibliographic database searching. Ongoing development plans also are discussed briefly

0.02593536 = product of:
  0.10374144 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.02593536 = product of:
  0.10374144 = sum of:
    0.10374144 = weight(_text_:fields in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10374144 = score(doc=307,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.32825118 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports an examination of the results of 114 sessions on the online catalogue, at the Ellis Library, Missouri University at Columbia, to determine what types of searches were conducted and what search modes and fields (title, author) were used. Examination of tranaction logs revealed that title and author searches predominated and that the opportunity to construct Boolean searches was rarely taken advantage of. The searchers themselves reported that they were, on the whole, experienced at using the system; most searched the catalogue at least once a week. This is reflected in the relatively low instance of error and in the fact that most searches produced at least some hits. The majority of errors that were made in the process of searching were typographical