Search (906 results, page 1 of 46)

0.08243054 = product of:
  0.16486108 = sum of:
    0.16486108 = product of:
      0.49458322 = sum of:
        0.49458322 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.49458322 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44000652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051899735 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.07146588 = product of:
  0.14293176 = sum of:
    0.14293176 = sum of:
      0.09370988 = weight(_text_:services in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09370988 = score(doc=2592,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.4918039 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
      0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04922188 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In June 2009, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group established the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control to address recommendation 5.1.1.1 of On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which focused on developing measures for costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic control. This paper outlines results of that task force's efforts to develop and articulate metrics for evaluating the cost and value of cataloging activities specifically, and offers some next steps that the community could take to further the profession's collective understanding of the costs and values associated with bibliographic control.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 55(2011) no.3, S.124-137

0.06870217 = product of:
  0.13740434 = sum of:
    0.13740434 = sum of:
      0.10224585 = weight(_text_:services in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10224585 = score(doc=4066,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.536602 = fieldWeight in 4066, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4066)
      0.03515849 = weight(_text_:22 in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03515849 = score(doc=4066,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4066, 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=4066)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The focus of this paper is the provision of terminology- and classification-based terminologies interoperability data via web services, initially using interoperability data based on the use of a Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) spine, but with an aim to explore other possibilities in time, including the use of other spines. The High-Level Thesaurus Project (HILT) Phase IV developed pilot web services based on SRW/U, SOAP, and SKOS to deliver machine-readable terminology and crossterminology mappings data likely to be useful to information services wishing to enhance their subject search or browse services. It also developed an associated toolkit to help information services technical staff to embed HILT-related functionality within service interfaces. Several UK information services have created illustrative user interface enhancements using HILT functionality and these will demonstrate what is possible. HILT currently has the following subject schemes mounted and available: DDC, CAB, GCMD, HASSET, IPSV, LCSH, MeSH, NMR, SCAS, UNESCO, and AAT. It also has high level mappings between some of these schemes and DDC and some deeper pilot mappings available.

Date

6. 1.2011 19:22:48

0.06869212 = product of:
  0.13738424 = sum of:
    0.13738424 = product of:
      0.41215268 = sum of:
        0.41215268 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.41215268 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44000652 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051899735 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.062867835 = product of:
  0.12573567 = sum of:
    0.12573567 = sum of:
      0.07651379 = weight(_text_:services in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07651379 = score(doc=2600,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.40155616 = fieldWeight in 2600, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2600)
      0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04922188 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research libraries are using batchloading to provide access to many resources that they would otherwise be unable to catalog given the staff and other resources available. To explore how such libraries are managing their batchloading activities, the authors conducted a survey of the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group member libraries. The survey addressed staffing, budgets, scope, workflow, management, quality standards, information technology support, collaborative efforts, and assessment of batchloading activities. The authors provide an analysis of the survey results along with suggestions for process improvements and future research.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 56(2012) no.3, S.155-170

0.059043027 = product of:
  0.118086055 = sum of:
    0.118086055 = sum of:
      0.06183248 = weight(_text_:services in 2601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06183248 = score(doc=2601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 2601, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2601)
      0.05625358 = weight(_text_:22 in 2601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05625358 = score(doc=2601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2601, 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=2601)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 56(2012) no.4, S.238-253

0.056224547 = product of:
  0.112449095 = sum of:
    0.112449095 = sum of:
      0.0772906 = weight(_text_:services in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0772906 = score(doc=2845,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.405633 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.03515849 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03515849 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2845, 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=2845)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The music information retrieval (MIR) community has long understood the role of evaluation as a critical component for successful information retrieval systems. Over the past several years, it has also become evident that user-centered evaluation based on realistic tasks is essential for creating systems that are commercially marketable. Although user-oriented research has been increasing, the MIR field is still lacking in holistic, user-centered approaches to evaluating music services beyond measuring the performance of search or classification algorithms. In light of this need, we conducted a user study exploring how users evaluate their overall experience with existing popular commercial music services, asking about their interactions with the system as well as situational and personal characteristics. In this paper, we present a qualitative heuristic evaluation of commercial music services based on Jakob Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics for user interface design, and also discuss 8 additional criteria that may be used for the holistic evaluation of user experience in MIR systems. Finally, we recommend areas of future user research raised by trends and patterns that surfaced from this user study.

Date

17. 3.2016 19:22:15

0.05388672 = product of:
  0.10777344 = sum of:
    0.10777344 = sum of:
      0.06558325 = weight(_text_:services in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06558325 = score(doc=1347,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.344191 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
      0.042190183 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042190183 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Terminology registries (TRs) are a crucial element of the infrastructure required for resource discovery services, digital libraries, Linked Data, and semantic interoperability generally. They can make the content of knowledge organization systems (KOS) available both for human and machine access. The paper describes the attributes and functionality for a TR, based on a review of published literature, existing TRs, and a survey of experts. A domain model based on user tasks is constructed and a set of core metadata elements for use in TRs is proposed. Ideally, the TR should allow searching as well as browsing for a KOS, matching a user's search while also providing information about existing terminology services, accessible to both humans and machines. The issues surrounding metadata for KOS are also discussed, together with the rationale for different aspects and the importance of a core set of KOS metadata for future machine-based access; a possible core set of metadata elements is proposed. This is dealt with in terms of practical experience and in relation to the Dublin Core Application Profile.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54

0.05388672 = product of:
  0.10777344 = sum of:
    0.10777344 = sum of:
      0.06558325 = weight(_text_:services in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06558325 = score(doc=2602,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.344191 = fieldWeight in 2602, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2602)
      0.042190183 = weight(_text_:22 in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042190183 = score(doc=2602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2602, 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=2602)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2009, a new company, SkyRiver, began offering bibliographic utility services to libraries in direct competition to OCLC's WorldCat. This study examines the differences between the two databases in terms of hit rates, total number of records found for each title in the sample, number of non-English language records, and the presence and completeness of several elements in the most-held bibliographic record for each title. While this study discovered that the two databases had virtually the same hit rates and record fullness for the sample used-with encoding levels as the sole exception-the study results do indicate meaningful differences in the number of duplicate records and non-English-language records available in each database for recently published scholarly monographs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 58(2014) no.3, S.178-186

0.05388672 = product of:
  0.10777344 = sum of:
    0.10777344 = sum of:
      0.06558325 = weight(_text_:services in 2604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06558325 = score(doc=2604,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.344191 = fieldWeight in 2604, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2604)
      0.042190183 = weight(_text_:22 in 2604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042190183 = score(doc=2604,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2604, 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=2604)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Among the many issues associated with integrating e-books into library collections and services, the revision of existing workflows in cataloging units has received little attention. The experience designing new workflows for e-books at Oregon State University Libraries since 2008 is described in detail from the perspective of three different sources of e-books. These descriptions highlight where the workflows applied to each vendor's stream differ. A workflow was developed for each vendor, based on the quality and source of available bibliographic records and the staff member performing the task. Involving cataloging staff as early as possible in the process of purchasing e-books from a new vendor ensures that a suitable workflow can be designed and implemented as soon as possible. This ensures that the representation of e-books in the library catalog is not delayed, increasing the likelihood that users will readily find and use these resources that the library has purchased.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 58(2014) no.2, S.127-136

0.05388672 = product of:
  0.10777344 = sum of:
    0.10777344 = sum of:
      0.06558325 = weight(_text_:services in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06558325 = score(doc=2608,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.344191 = fieldWeight in 2608, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2608)
      0.042190183 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042190183 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper surveys the English-language literature on cataloging and classification published during 2011 and 2012, covering both theory and application. A major theme of the literature centered on Resource Description and Access (RDA), as the period covered in this review includes the conclusion of the RDA test, revisions to RDA, and the implementation decision. Explorations in the theory and practical applications of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), upon which RDA is organized, are also heavily represented. Library involvement with linked data through the creation of prototypes and vocabularies are explored further during the period. Other areas covered in the review include: classification, controlled vocabularies and name authority, evaluation and history of cataloging, special formats cataloging, cataloging and discovery services, non-AACR2/RDA metadata, cataloging workflows, and the education and careers of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 58(2014) no.4, S.233-249

0.051662654 = product of:
  0.10332531 = sum of:
    0.10332531 = sum of:
      0.054103423 = weight(_text_:services in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054103423 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2546, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2546)
      0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04922188 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 56(2012) no.3, S.122-126

0.051662654 = product of:
  0.10332531 = sum of:
    0.10332531 = sum of:
      0.054103423 = weight(_text_:services in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054103423 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
      0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04922188 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 54(2010) no.2, S.90-114

0.051662654 = product of:
  0.10332531 = sum of:
    0.10332531 = sum of:
      0.054103423 = weight(_text_:services in 2543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054103423 = score(doc=2543,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2543, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2543)
      0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 2543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04922188 = score(doc=2543,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2543, 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=2543)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die Ergebnisse einer Analyse zusammengefasst, in der untersucht wurde, ob, und wenn ja welche Services für das Management von publikationsbezogenen Forschungsdaten gegenwärtig bei wissenschaftlichen Infrastrukturdienstleistern in den Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften bestehen. Die Analyse wurde Mithilfe von Desktop-Research sowie einer Online-Befragung, an der sich 22 von 46 angeschriebenen Institutionen beteiligten, durchgeführt. Untersucht wurden vor allem deutsche und europäische Forschungsdatenzentren, Bibliotheken und Archive. Insbesondere wurde untersucht, ob diese Organisationen extern erzeugte Forschungsdaten, den dazugehörigen Berechnungscode (Syntax) und ggf. genutzte (selbstgeschriebene) Software grundsätzlich speichern und hosten. Weitere Themenfelder waren Metadatenstandards, Persistente Identifikatoren, Verfügbarkeit von Schnittstellen (APIs) und Unterstützung von semantischen Technologien.

0.051662654 = product of:
  0.10332531 = sum of:
    0.10332531 = sum of:
      0.054103423 = weight(_text_:services in 2599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054103423 = score(doc=2599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2599, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2599)
      0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 2599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04922188 = score(doc=2599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2599, 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=2599)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 58(2014) no.2, S.111-126

0.051662654 = product of:
  0.10332531 = sum of:
    0.10332531 = sum of:
      0.054103423 = weight(_text_:services in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054103423 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
      0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04922188 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2606, 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=2606)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 58(2014) no.3, S.187-208

0.051662654 = product of:
  0.10332531 = sum of:
    0.10332531 = sum of:
      0.054103423 = weight(_text_:services in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054103423 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2609, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2609)
      0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04922188 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2609, 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=2609)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 59(2015) no.4, S.187-199

0.051047057 = product of:
  0.102094114 = sum of:
    0.102094114 = sum of:
      0.06693563 = weight(_text_:services in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06693563 = score(doc=1605,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
      0.03515849 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03515849 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1605, 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=1605)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Numerous studies have explored the possibility of uncovering information from web search queries but few have examined the factors that affect web query data sources. We conducted a study that investigated this issue by comparing Google Trends and Baidu Index. Data from these two services are based on queries entered by users into Google and Baidu, two of the largest search engines in the world. We first compared the features and functions of the two services based on documents and extensive testing. We then carried out an empirical study that collected query volume data from the two sources. We found that data from both sources could be used to predict the quality of Chinese universities and companies. Despite the differences between the two services in terms of technology, such as differing methods of language processing, the search volume data from the two were highly correlated and combining the two data sources did not improve the predictive power of the data. However, there was a major difference between the two in terms of data availability. Baidu Index was able to provide more search volume data than Google Trends did. Our analysis showed that the disadvantage of Google Trends in this regard was due to Google's smaller user base in China. The implication of this finding goes beyond China. Google's user bases in many countries are smaller than that in China, so the search volume data related to those countries could result in the same issue as that related to China.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.13-22

0.051047057 = product of:
  0.102094114 = sum of:
    0.102094114 = sum of:
      0.06693563 = weight(_text_:services in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06693563 = score(doc=2638,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.03515849 = weight(_text_:22 in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03515849 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2638, 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=2638)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the context of online question-answering services, an intermediary clarifies the user's needs by eliciting additional information. This research proposes that these elicitations will depend on the type of question. In particular, this research explores the relationship between three constructs: question types, elicitations, and the fee that is paid for the answer. These relationships are explored for a few different question typologies, including a new kind of question type that we call Identity. It is found that the kinds of clarifications that intermediaries elicit depend on the type of question in systematic ways. A practical implication is that interactive question-answering services-whether human or automated-can be steered to focus attention on the kinds of clarification that are evidently most needed for that question type. Further, it is found that certain question types, as well as the number of elicitations, are associated with higher fees. This means that it may be possible to define a pricing structure for question-answering services based on objective and predictable characteristics of the question, which would help to establish a rational market for this type of information service. The newly introduced Identity question type was found to be especially reliable in predicting elicitations and fees.

Date

22. 1.2016 11:58:25

0.051047057 = product of:
  0.102094114 = sum of:
    0.102094114 = sum of:
      0.06693563 = weight(_text_:services in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06693563 = score(doc=5491,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 5491, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5491)
      0.03515849 = weight(_text_:22 in 5491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03515849 = score(doc=5491,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5491, 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=5491)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RDS are usually cross-disciplinary, centralised services, which are increasingly provided at a university by the academic library and in collaboration with other RDM stakeholders, such as the Research Office. At research-intensive universities, research data is generated in a wide range of disciplines and sub-disciplines. This paper will discuss how providing discipline-specific RDM support is approached by such universities and academic libraries, and the advantages and disadvantages of these central and discipline-specific approaches. A descriptive case study on the author's experiences of collaborating with a central RDS at the University of Cambridge, as a subject librarian embedded in an academic department, is a major component of this paper. The case study describes how centralised RDM services offered by the Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) have been adapted to meet discipline-specific needs in the Department of Chemistry. It will introduce the department and the OSC, and describe the author's role in delivering RDM training, as well as the Data Champions programme, and their membership of the RDM Project Group. It will describe the outcomes of this collaboration for the Department of Chemistry, and for the centralised service. Centralised and discipline-specific approaches to RDS provision have their own advantages and disadvantages. Supporting the discipline-specific RDM needs of researchers is proving particularly challenging for universities to address sustainably: it requires adequate financial resources and staff skilled (or re-skilled) in RDM. A mixed approach is the most desirable, cost-effective way of providing RDS, but this still has constraints.

Date

7. 9.2019 21:30:22