Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.11253528 = product of:
  0.15004705 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2611,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
    0.114989616 = weight(_text_:standards in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114989616 = score(doc=2611,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.51174676 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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

0.055682447 = product of:
  0.11136489 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
    0.10106549 = sum of:
      0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060081743 = score(doc=1467,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1467, 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=1467)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The aim of the research undertaken was to get to know the degree of implementation of discovery tools in university libraries in the Iberian Peninsula. It also allowed an initial evaluation of the facilities offered by the tools implemented. With regard to the presence of discovery tools we find a different situation in the two countries, with a higher degree of implementation in Spain. As for the behaviour of the discovery layers, the eight tools evaluated performed appropriately. Discovery tools represent a considerable advance. The combining of the library's catalogue and indexes to articles with other sources of information in a single unified interface is an unquestionable improvement. However, catalogues and databases still fulfil some purposes better than discovery tools. Libraries need to consider their clients when putting up on their websites the various tools for gaining access to contents.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.05074306 = product of:
  0.10148612 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=1878,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.047971137 = product of:
  0.095942274 = sum of:
    0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07824052 = score(doc=4379,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=4379,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While support for subject searching has been traditionally advocated for in library catalogs, often in the form of a catalog objective to find everything that a library has on a certain topic, research has shown that subject access has not been satisfactory. Many existing online catalogs and discovery services do not seem to make good use of the intellectual effort invested into assigning controlled subject index terms and classes. For example, few support hierarchical browsing of classification schemes and other controlled vocabularies with hierarchical structures, few provide end-user-friendly options to choose a more specific concept to increase precision, a broader concept or related concepts to increase recall, to disambiguate homonyms, or to find which term is best used to name a concept. Optimum subject access in library catalogs and discovery services is analyzed from the perspective of earlier research as well as contemporary conceptual models and cataloguing codes. Eighteen proposed features of what this should entail in practice are drawn. In an exploratory qualitative study, the three most common discovery services used in Swedish academic libraries are analyzed against these features. In line with previous research, subject access in contemporary interfaces is demonstrated to less than optimal. This is in spite of the fact that individual collections have been indexed with controlled vocabularies and a significant number of controlled vocabularies have been mapped to each other and are available in interoperable standards. Strategic action is proposed to build research-informed (inter)national standards and guidelines.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.4, S.297-309

0.013946974 = product of:
  0.027893947 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 1799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=1799,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1799, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1799)
    0.014161401 = product of:
      0.028322803 = sum of:
        0.028322803 = weight(_text_:organization in 1799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028322803 = score(doc=1799,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15756798 = fieldWeight in 1799, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This volume contains the proceedings of a special conference held in Florence, August 2009. The theoretical and methodological aspects of rethinking semantic access to information and knowledge are explored. Innovative projects deployed to cope with the challenges of the future are presented and discussed. This book offers a unique opportunity for librarians and other information professionals to get acquainted with the state of the art in subject indexing.

Content

Inhalt: Introduction -- Focusing on user needs :new ways of subject access in Czechia -- Subject analysis and indexing :an "Italian version" of the analytico-synthetic model -- Subject search in Italian OPACs :an opportunity in waiting? -- Semiautomatic merging of two universal thesauri :the case of Estonia -- 20 years SWD :German subject authority data prepared for the future -- Mixed translations of the DDC :design, usability, and implications for knowledge organization in multilingual environments -- Animals belonging to the emperor :enabling viewpoint warrant in classification -- Dewey in Sweden :leaving SAB after 87 years -- Enhancing information services using machine-to-machine terminology services -- Social bookmarking and subject indexing -- Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library -- The Nuovo Soggettario Thesaurus :structural features and web application projects -- Jzyk Hasel Przedmiotowych Biblioteki Narodowej (National Library of Poland Subject Headings) :from card catalogs to Digital Library :some questions about the future of a Local Subject Heading Systems in the changing world of information retrieval -- FAST headings as tags for WorldCat

0.0076650837 = product of:
  0.030660335 = sum of:
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 4307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=4307,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 4307, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4307)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The construction and updating of indexing languages depend on the organization of their hierarchical structures in order to determine the classification of related terms and, above all, to allow a constant updating of vocabulary, a condition for knowledge evolution. The elaboration of an indexing language for online catalogs of libraries' networks is important considering the diversity and specificity of knowledge areas. From this perspective, the present paper reports on the work of a team of catalogers and researchers engaged in the construction of a hierarchical structure of an indexing language for an online catalog of a university library's network. The work on hierarchical structures began by defining the categories and subcategories that form the indexing language macrostructure by using the parameters of the Library of Congress Subject Headings , the National Library Terminology and the Vocabulary of the University of São Paulo Library's system. Throughout the stages of the elaboration process of the macrostructure, difficulties and improvements were observed and discussed. The results enabled the assessment of the hierarchical structures of the languages used in the organization of the superordinate and subordinate terms, which has contributed to the systematization of operational procedures contained in an indexing language manual for online catalogs of libraries.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.3, S.220-231

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=3102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 3102, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 15th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems Workshop (NKOS 2016) co-located with the 20th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2016 (TPDL 2016), Hannover, Germany, September 9, 2016. Edi. by Philipp Mayr et al. [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/=urn:nbn:de:0074-1676-5]

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=3571,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliotheken sind nicht chaotische Sammlungen von Medien, sondern werden stets als Information-Retrieval-Systeme implementiert, denn das Wiederfinden bei exakten und vor allem bei vagen Anfragen ist von Anfang an das Sammlungsziel. Niemand kennt zum Zeitpunkt der Sammlung die Fragestellung, die einen zukünftigen Benutzer zu diesem Medium führen wird. Die Art der Sammlungsorganisation bestimmt in hohem Maße die zukünftig mögliche Antwortmenge und deren informatorische Qualität. Der Siegeszug der digitalen Information-Retrieval-Systeme im Internet hat in den letzten zehn Jahren Erwartungen und Märkte geschaffen, die weder Karteikarten, noch deren digitales Ebenbild, die heutigen Bibliotheksmanagement-Systeme befriedigen können. Es genügt nicht mehr, dass Google und andere kostenlos das aufsammeln und nachweisen, was im Internet frei zugänglich ist. Alte, noch »marktfähige« Inhalte werden neu aufbereitet, mit neuen Inhalten kombiniert, um neue Geschäftsfelder zu schaffen. Es geht um Verdrängung und Neuverteilung, und die älteren Inhalte der Bibliotheken sind meist noch hinreichend »marktfähig«.

Series

Lesesaal: Information digital

0.0051229675 = product of:
  0.02049187 = sum of:
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 2.2015 9:22:39

0.004425438 = product of:
  0.017701752 = sum of:
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=1801,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Subject access to bibliographic data supported by knowledge organization systems, such as subject headings and classification, plays an important role in ensuring the quality of library catalogues. It is generally acknowledged that users have a strong affinity to subject browsing and searching and are inclined tofollow meaningful links between resources. Research studies, however, show that library OPACs are not designed to support or make good use of subject indexes and their underlying semantic structure. A project entitled OPAC semantici was initiated in 2003 by a number of Italian subject specialists and the Italian "Research Group on Subject Indexing" (GRIS) with a goal to analyse and evaluate subject access in Italian library catalogues through a survey of 150 OPACs. Applying the same methodology, a follow-up survey to assess whether any improvement had taken place was conducted five years later, in spring 2008. Analysis of these two surveys indicated that there was a slight improvement. The authors discuss the results of these two surveys, analyse the problems in subject searching in OPACs and explain the recommendations for subject searching enhancement put forward by GRIS. Using the example of Italian OPACs, the authors will attempt to outline some requirements for a subject searching interface and explain how this can be achieved through authority control.

0.0037164795 = product of:
  0.014865918 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=4042,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although technology can often correct spelling errors, the complex tasks of information searching and retrieval in an online public access catalog (OPAC) are made more difficult by these errors in users' input and bibliographic records. This study examines the search behaviors of 38 university students, divided into groups with either easy-to-spell or difficult-to-spell search terms, who were asked to find items in the OPAC with these search terms. Search behaviors and strategy use in the OPAC and on the World Wide Web (WWW) were examined. In general, students used familiar Web resources to check their spelling or discover more about the assigned topic. Students with difficult-to-spell search terms checked spelling more often, changed search strategies to look for the general topic and had fewer successful searches. Students unable to find the correct spelling of a search term were unable to complete their search. Students tended to search the OPAC as they would search a search engine, with few search terms or complex search strategies. The results of this study have implications for spell checking, user-focused OPAC design, and cataloging. Students' search behaviors are discussed by expanding Thatcher's (2006) Information-Seeking Process and Tactics for the WWW model to include OPACs.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2461-2476

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 2796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=2796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2796)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annals of library and information studies. 62(2015) no.4, S.286-289

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=2726,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

Source

Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.6, S.1136-1150

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4073)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Nach einschlägigen Fortbildungsveranstaltungen in Stuttgart in den Jahren 2004 und 20071 beschäftigte sich der Regionalverband Südwest des Vereins Deutscher Bibliothekare (VDB) bereits zum dritten Mal in einer Vortragsveranstaltung mit aktuellen und zukünftigen Entwicklungen bei Bibliothekskatalogen: "Der Katalog der Zukunft (Teil 3): Die Benutzer in den Mittelpunkt!" war der Titel der Veranstaltung am 11. November 2010. Gastgeber war - wie schon bei der Premiere der Veranstaltungsreihe im Jahr 2004 - die Universitätsbibliothek Stuttgart. Da der Landesverband Baden-Württemberg des Berufsverband Information Bibliothek (BIB) ebenfalls an der Thematik interessiert war, bot es sich an, die Fortbildung gemeinsam durchzuführen. Zugleich sollte damit ein Zeichen für eine engere Kooperation der beiden Berufsverbände gesetzt werden. Entsprechend wurde auch die Moderation geteilt: Vormittags moderierte Heidrun Wiesenmüller von der Stuttgarter Hochschule der Medien (VDB Südwest), nachmittags Isabell Leibing von der Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz (BIB Baden-Württemberg). Die Vortragsfolien und weitere Materialien können über die Websites des VDB-Regionalverbands Südwest und der BIB-Landesgruppe Baden-Württemberg abgerufen werden.

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Frau Wiesmüller möge mir verzeihen, aber was sie da mit Bellinda Woppada zur Katalogisierung in öffentlichen Bibliotheken zusammengeschrieben hat, ist für mich aus Benutzersicht ziemlich uninteressant. Es gibt bisher kaum Literatur zu diesem Thema, das aber nach Ansicht der Autorinnen wichtiger ist als es scheint. Meine These lautet: Es muss für BenutzerInnen katalogisiert werden, aber schon ein sehr sehr kurzer Blick auf einige OPACs macht deutlich, wieviel da im Argen liegt. Zu den einzelnen Medien sollte möglichst viel Information als Entscheidungshilfe vorliegen, und das kann nur durch viel mehr Kooperation der Bibliotheken realisiert werden. Die Optik ist meist katastrophal. Die OPACs geben sich ästhetisch abschreckend auf dem Stand der 1990er Jahre, Coverbilder gibt es weniger, als ich gedacht hätte."

0.0025614838 = product of:
  0.010245935 = sum of:
    0.010245935 = product of:
      0.02049187 = sum of:
        0.02049187 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02049187 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=4129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.114-138