Search (1753 results, page 1 of 88)

0.12644188 = product of:
  0.25288376 = sum of:
    0.25288376 = product of:
      0.5057675 = sum of:
        0.1973554 = weight(_text_:3a in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1973554 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4213859 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
        0.3084121 = weight(_text_:2c in 692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3084121 = score(doc=692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.52677023 = queryWeight, product of:
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=692)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Piaget-%E2%80%99-s-Constructivism-%2C-Papert-%E2%80%99-s-%3A-What-%E2%80%99-s-Ackermann/89cbcc1e740a4591443ff4765a6ae8df0fdf5554. Darunter weitere Hinweise auf verwandte Beiträge. Auch unter: Learning Group Publication 5(2001) no.3, S.438.

0.12106492 = product of:
  0.24212985 = sum of:
    0.24212985 = sum of:
      0.19499098 = weight(_text_:r.l in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19499098 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.5508277 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
      0.047138866 = weight(_text_:22 in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047138866 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2843, 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=2843)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.138-143

0.12106492 = product of:
  0.24212985 = sum of:
    0.24212985 = sum of:
      0.19499098 = weight(_text_:r.l in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19499098 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.5508277 = fieldWeight in 2844, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2844)
      0.047138866 = weight(_text_:22 in 2844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047138866 = score(doc=2844,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2844, 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=2844)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.28-39

0.10068687 = sum of:
  0.017119303 = product of:
    0.06847721 = sum of:
      0.06847721 = weight(_text_:authors in 5459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06847721 = score(doc=5459,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22658853 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5459, 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=5459)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.08356757 = product of:
    0.16713513 = sum of:
      0.16713513 = weight(_text_:r.l in 5459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16713513 = score(doc=5459,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.47213805 = fieldWeight in 5459, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5459)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Educating librarians to perform authority work and catalog maintenance involves formal education in library school and both on-the-job and in-service training. However, the path from library school graduate to authority control librarian is neither direct nor self-evident. The authors surveyed the membership of the AUTOCAT electronic discussion group to determine how librarians learn the theory and practice of authority control and catalog maintenance; strategies that would make authority control easier to learn; levels of educational responsibility involved for the library schools, individual librarians and their employers; and how librarians value authority control. The survey results show that an ongoing collaboration among librarians, employers and educators is needed to refine and simplify the process of authority control education.

0.093938336 = sum of:
  0.077103026 = product of:
    0.3084121 = sum of:
      0.3084121 = weight(_text_:2c in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.3084121 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.52677023 = queryWeight, product of:
            10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.5854775 = fieldWeight in 193, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            10.598275 = idf(docFreq=2, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=193)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.01683531 = product of:
    0.03367062 = sum of:
      0.03367062 = weight(_text_:22 in 193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03367062 = score(doc=193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 193, 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=193)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bib-info/frontdoor/index/index/searchtype/authorsearch/author/%22Hubrich%2C+Jessica%22/docId/703/start/0/rows/20

0.09344836 = product of:
  0.18689673 = sum of:
    0.18689673 = sum of:
      0.13927928 = weight(_text_:r.l in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13927928 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.39344835 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
      0.047617447 = weight(_text_:22 in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047617447 = score(doc=1467,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 2.2008 17:22:52

Object

DDC-22

0.08647495 = product of:
  0.1729499 = sum of:
    0.1729499 = sum of:
      0.13927928 = weight(_text_:r.l in 2443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13927928 = score(doc=2443,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.39344835 = fieldWeight in 2443, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2443)
      0.03367062 = weight(_text_:22 in 2443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03367062 = score(doc=2443,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2443, 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=2443)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22.11.2008 12:49:22

0.08356757 = product of:
  0.16713513 = sum of:
    0.16713513 = product of:
      0.33427027 = sum of:
        0.33427027 = weight(_text_:r.l in 3789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33427027 = score(doc=3789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.9442761 = fieldWeight in 3789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.08356757 = product of:
  0.16713513 = sum of:
    0.16713513 = product of:
      0.33427027 = sum of:
        0.33427027 = weight(_text_:r.l in 518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33427027 = score(doc=518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.9442761 = fieldWeight in 518, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.07940899 = sum of:
  0.05920662 = product of:
    0.23682648 = sum of:
      0.23682648 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23682648 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4213859 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02020237 = product of:
    0.04040474 = sum of:
      0.04040474 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04040474 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.07853745 = sum of:
  0.022825737 = product of:
    0.091302946 = sum of:
      0.091302946 = weight(_text_:authors in 4297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.091302946 = score(doc=4297,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.22658853 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 4297, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4297)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.055711713 = product of:
    0.111423425 = sum of:
      0.111423425 = weight(_text_:r.l in 4297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.111423425 = score(doc=4297,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.3147587 = fieldWeight in 4297, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4297)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

The authors state that this book emerged from a proposal to do a second edition of Explorations in Indexing and Abstracting (O'Connor 1996); much of its content is the result of the authors' reaction to the reviews of this first edition and their realization for "the necessity to address some more fundamental questions". Rez. in: KO 38(2011) no.1, S.62-64 (L.F. Spiteri): "This book provides a good overview of the relationship between the document and the user; in this regard, it reinforces the importance of the clientcentred approach to the design of document representation systems. In the final chapter, the authors state: "We have offered examples of new ways to think about messages in all sorts of media and how they might be discovered, analyzed, synthesized, and generated. We brought together philosophical, scientific, and engineering notions into a fundamental model for just how we might understand doing this with information" (p. 225). The authors have certainly succeeded in highlighting the complex processes, nature, and implications of document representation systems, although, as has been seen, the novelty of some of their discussions and suggestions is sometimes limited. With further explanation, the FOC model may serve as a useful way to understand how to build document representation systems to better meet user needs."; vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_38_2011_1e.pdf.

0.06963964 = product of:
  0.13927928 = sum of:
    0.13927928 = product of:
      0.27855855 = sum of:
        0.27855855 = weight(_text_:r.l in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27855855 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.7868967 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.06963964 = product of:
  0.13927928 = sum of:
    0.13927928 = product of:
      0.27855855 = sum of:
        0.27855855 = weight(_text_:r.l in 5093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27855855 = score(doc=5093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.7868967 = fieldWeight in 5093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.058162853 = sum of:
  0.034593422 = product of:
    0.13837369 = sum of:
      0.13837369 = weight(_text_:authors in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13837369 = score(doc=5760,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.22658853 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023569433 = product of:
    0.047138866 = sum of:
      0.047138866 = weight(_text_:22 in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047138866 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5760, 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=5760)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Normalization rules are essential for interoperability between bibliographic systems. In the process of working with Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) authority files to match records with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and developing the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject heading schema, the authors found inconsistencies in independently created NACO normalization implementations. Investigating these, the authors found ambiguities in the NACO standard that need resolution, and came to conclusions on how the procedure could be simplified with little impact on matching headings. To encourage others to test their software for compliance with the current rules, the authors have established a Web site that has test files and interactive services showing their current implementation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.055711713 = product of:
  0.111423425 = sum of:
    0.111423425 = product of:
      0.22284685 = sum of:
        0.22284685 = weight(_text_:r.l in 781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22284685 = score(doc=781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.6295174 = fieldWeight in 781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.055711713 = product of:
  0.111423425 = sum of:
    0.111423425 = product of:
      0.22284685 = sum of:
        0.22284685 = weight(_text_:r.l in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22284685 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35399634 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049703393 = queryNorm
            0.6295174 = fieldWeight in 1468, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.122176 = idf(docFreq=96, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05181484 = sum of:
  0.028245408 = product of:
    0.11298163 = sum of:
      0.11298163 = weight(_text_:authors in 5267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11298163 = score(doc=5267,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22658853 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 5267, 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=5267)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.023569433 = product of:
    0.047138866 = sum of:
      0.047138866 = weight(_text_:22 in 5267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047138866 = score(doc=5267,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5267, 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=5267)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The outputs of several information filtering (IF) systems can be combined to improve filtering performance. In this article the authors propose and explore a framework based on the so-called information structure (IS) model, which is frequently used in Information Economics, for combining the output of multiple IF systems according to each user's preferences (profile). The combination seeks to maximize the expected payoff to that user. The authors show analytically that the proposed framework increases users expected payoff from the combined filtering output for any user preferences. An experiment using the TREC-6 test collection confirms the theoretical findings.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:05:39

0.045689773 = sum of:
  0.017119303 = product of:
    0.06847721 = sum of:
      0.06847721 = weight(_text_:authors in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06847721 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22658853 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02857047 = product of:
    0.05714094 = sum of:
      0.05714094 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05714094 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

0.04441272 = sum of:
  0.02421035 = product of:
    0.0968414 = sum of:
      0.0968414 = weight(_text_:authors in 5293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0968414 = score(doc=5293,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22658853 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 5293, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5293)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02020237 = product of:
    0.04040474 = sum of:
      0.04040474 = weight(_text_:22 in 5293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04040474 = score(doc=5293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5293, 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=5293)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors describe a set of best practices that were developed to assist in the design of search user interfaces. Search user interfaces represent a challenging design domain because novices who have no desire to learn the mechanics of search engine architecture or algorithms often use them. These can lead to frustration and task failure when it is not addressed by the user interface. The best practices are organized into five domains: the corpus, search algorithms, user and task context, the search interface, and mobility. In each section the authors present an introduction to the design challenges related to the domain and a set of best practices for creating a user interface that facilitates effective use by a broad population of users and tasks.

Date

22. 7.2006 17:38:51

0.04441272 = sum of:
  0.02421035 = product of:
    0.0968414 = sum of:
      0.0968414 = weight(_text_:authors in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0968414 = score(doc=2751,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22658853 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02020237 = product of:
    0.04040474 = sum of:
      0.04040474 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04040474 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17405282 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049703393 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:05:07