Search (151 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Morris, V.: Automated language identification of bibliographic resources (2020) 0.06 
    0.05500804 = product of:
  0.11001608 = sum of:
    0.11001608 = sum of:
      0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06081203 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
      0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04920405 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, 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=5749)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    2. 3.2020 19:04:22
  2. Yu, L.; Fan, Z.; Li, A.: ¬A hierarchical typology of scholarly information units : based on a deduction-verification study (2020) 0.03 
    0.02750402 = product of:
  0.05500804 = sum of:
    0.05500804 = sum of:
      0.030406015 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030406015 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
      0.024602026 = weight(_text_:22 in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024602026 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to lay a theoretical foundation for identifying operational information units for library and information professional activities in the context of scholarly communication. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a deduction-verification approach to formulate a typology of units for scholarly information. It first deduces possible units from an existing conceptualization of information, which defines information as the combined product of data and meaning, and then tests the usefulness of these units via two empirical investigations, one with a group of scholarly papers and the other with a sample of scholarly information users. Findings The results show that, on defining an information unit as a piece of information that is complete in both data and meaning, to such an extent that it remains meaningful to its target audience when retrieved and displayed independently in a database, it is then possible to formulate a hierarchical typology of units for scholarly information. The typology proposed in this study consists of three levels, which in turn, consists of 1, 5 and 44 units, respectively. Research limitations/implications The result of this study has theoretical implications on both the philosophical and conceptual levels: on the philosophical level, it hinges on, and reinforces the objective view of information; on the conceptual level, it challenges the conceptualization of work by IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and Library Reference Model but endorses that by Library of Congress's BIBFRAME 2.0 model. Practical implications It calls for reconsideration of existing operational units in a variety of library and information activities. Originality/value The study strengthens the conceptual foundation of operational information units and brings to light the primacy of "one work" as an information unit and the possibility for it to be supplemented by smaller units.
    Date
    14. 1.2020 11:15:22
  3. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.03 
    0.027037721 = product of:
  0.054075442 = sum of:
    0.054075442 = product of:
      0.21630177 = sum of:
        0.21630177 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21630177 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38486624 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  4. Zhu, Y.; Quan, L.; Chen, P.-Y.; Kim, M.C.; Che, C.: Predicting coauthorship using bibliographic network embedding (2023) 0.03 
    0.026875373 = product of:
  0.053750746 = sum of:
    0.053750746 = product of:
      0.10750149 = sum of:
        0.10750149 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10750149 = score(doc=917,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph-based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real-world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation-based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low-dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation-based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework.
  5. Leazer, G.H.: Strong and weak universalism in bibliographic services (2021) 0.02 
    0.023040833 = product of:
  0.046081666 = sum of:
    0.046081666 = product of:
      0.09216333 = sum of:
        0.09216333 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09216333 = score(doc=699,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 699, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=699)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Wilson stated that the work of providing bibliographic services is political in nature because catalogers have to adjudicate amongst the demands made for various forms of control by different communities. Although he did not address the work of the Documentalists directly, his claim is an implicit refutation of their universalist claims. Their efforts were to bring all the world's knowledge together, organize it under a single principle, and make it available to an undifferentiated global community. The concept of "universality" is examined in the context of bibliographic services, looking at claims regarding the collection of knowledge, users, and access.
  6. Fernanda de Jesus, A.; Ferreira de Castro, F.: Proposal for the publication of linked open bibliographic data (2024) 0.02 
    0.02280451 = product of:
  0.04560902 = sum of:
    0.04560902 = product of:
      0.09121804 = sum of:
        0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09121804 = score(doc=1161,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Linked Open Data (LOD) are a set of principles for publishing structured, connected data available for reuse under an open license. The objective of this paper is to analyze the publishing of bibliographic data such as LOD, having as a product the elaboration of theoretical-methodological recommendations for the publication of these data, in an approach based on the ten best practices for publishing LOD, from the World Wide Web Consortium. The starting point was the conduction of a Systematic Review of Literature, where initiatives to publish bibliographic data such as LOD were identified. An empirical study of these institutions was also conducted. As a result, theoretical-methodological recommendations were obtained for the process of publishing bibliographic data such as LOD.
  7. Dietz, K.: en.wikipedia.org > 6 Mio. Artikel (2020) 0.02 
    0.022531435 = product of:
  0.04506287 = sum of:
    0.04506287 = product of:
      0.18025148 = sum of:
        0.18025148 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18025148 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38486624 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."
  8. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.02 
    0.022531435 = product of:
  0.04506287 = sum of:
    0.04506287 = product of:
      0.18025148 = sum of:
        0.18025148 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18025148 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38486624 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.
  9. ¬Der Student aus dem Computer (2023) 0.02 
    0.021526773 = product of:
  0.043053545 = sum of:
    0.043053545 = product of:
      0.08610709 = sum of:
        0.08610709 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08610709 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27. 1.2023 16:22:55
  10. Dobreski, B.: Common usage as warrant in bibliographic description (2020) 0.02 
    0.021246849 = product of:
  0.042493697 = sum of:
    0.042493697 = product of:
      0.084987395 = sum of:
        0.084987395 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084987395 = score(doc=5708,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.480894 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.
  11. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia : an author bibliographic coupling analysis of traditional Chinese medicine (2022) 0.02 
    0.020111687 = product of:
  0.040223375 = sum of:
    0.040223375 = product of:
      0.08044675 = sum of:
        0.08044675 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08044675 = score(doc=608,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.45520115 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose Wikipedia has the lofty goal of compiling all human knowledge. The purpose of the present study is to map the structure of the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) knowledge domain on Wikipedia, to identify patterns of knowledge representation on Wikipedia and to test the applicability of author bibliographic coupling analysis, an effective method for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents, for Wikipedia data. Design/methodology/approach We adapted and followed the well-established procedures and techniques for author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA). Instead of bibliographic data from a citation database, we used all articles on TCM downloaded from the English version of Wikipedia as our dataset. An author bibliographic coupling network was calculated and then factor analyzed using SPSS. Factor analysis results were visualized. Factors were labeled upon manual examination of articles that authors who load primarily in each factor have significantly contributed references to. Clear factors were interpreted as topics. Findings Seven TCM topic areas are represented on Wikipedia, among which Acupuncture-related practices, Falun Gong and Herbal Medicine attracted the most significant contributors to TCM. Acupuncture and Qi Gong have the most connections to the TCM knowledge domain and also serve as bridges for other topics to connect to the domain. Herbal medicine is weakly linked to and non-herbal medicine is isolated from the rest of the TCM knowledge domain. It appears that specific topics are represented well on Wikipedia but their conceptual connections are not. ABCA is effective for mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia but document-based bibliographic coupling analysis is not. Originality/value Given the prominent position of Wikipedia for both information users and for researchers on knowledge organization and information retrieval, it is important to study how well knowledge is represented and structured on Wikipedia. Such studies appear largely missing although studies from different perspectives both about Wikipedia and using Wikipedia as data are abundant. Author bibliographic coupling analysis is effective for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents but has never been applied to mapping knowledge domains represented on Wikipedia.
  12. Delgado-Quirós, L.; Aguillo, I.F.; Martín-Martín, A.; López-Cózar, E.D.; Orduña-Malea, E.; Ortega, J.L.: Why are these publications missing? : uncovering the reasons behind the exclusion of documents in free-access scholarly databases (2024) 0.02 
    0.01900376 = product of:
  0.03800752 = sum of:
    0.03800752 = product of:
      0.07601504 = sum of:
        0.07601504 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07601504 = score(doc=1201,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 1201, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study analyses the coverage of seven free-access bibliographic databases (Crossref, Dimensions-non-subscription version, Google Scholar, Lens, Microsoft Academic, Scilit, and Semantic Scholar) to identify the potential reasons that might cause the exclusion of scholarly documents and how they could influence coverage. To do this, 116 k randomly selected bibliographic records from Crossref were used as a baseline. API endpoints and web scraping were used to query each database. The results show that coverage differences are mainly caused by the way each service builds their databases. While classic bibliographic databases ingest almost the exact same content from Crossref (Lens and Scilit miss 0.1% and 0.2% of the records, respectively), academic search engines present lower coverage (Google Scholar does not find: 9.8%, Semantic Scholar: 10%, and Microsoft Academic: 12%). Coverage differences are mainly attributed to external factors, such as web accessibility and robot exclusion policies (39.2%-46%), and internal requirements that exclude secondary content (6.5%-11.6%). In the case of Dimensions, the only classic bibliographic database with the lowest coverage (7.6%), internal selection criteria such as the indexation of full books instead of book chapters (65%) and the exclusion of secondary content (15%) are the main motives of missing publications.
  13. Holden, C.: ¬The bibliographic work : history, theory, and practice (2021) 0.02 
    0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=120,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The bibliographic work has assumed a great deal of importance in modern cataloging. But the concept of the work has existed for over a century, and even some of the earliest catalog codes differentiate between the intellectual work and its instances. This article will delve into the history and theory of the work, providing a basic overview of the concept as well as a summary of the myriad uses of the work throughout the history of cataloging. In addition to monographs, this paper will look at the work as applied to music, moving images, serials, and aggregates.
  14. Thomas, S.E.: ¬The Program for Cooperative Cataloging : backstory and future potential (2020) 0.02 
    0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=124,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In 1988 the Library of Congress and eight library participants undertook a two-year pilot known as the National Coordinated Cataloging Program (NCCP) to increase the number of quality bibliographic records. Subsequently the Bibliographic Services Study Committee reviewed the pilot. Discussions held at the Library of Congress (LC) and in other fora resulted in the creation of the Cooperative Cataloging Council, and, ultimately, the establishment of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) in 1994. The conditions that contributed to a successful approach to shared cataloging are described. The article concludes with considerations for expanding the future effectiveness of the PCC.
  15. Hider, P.; Coe, M.: Academic disciplines in the context of library classification : mapping university faculty structures to the DDC and LCC schemes (2022) 0.02 
    0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=709,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We investigated the extent to which the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification reflect the organizational structures of Australian universities. The mapping of the faculty structures of ten universities to the two schemes showed strong alignment, with very few fields represented in the names of the organizational units not covered at all by either bibliographic scheme. This suggests a degree of universality and "scientific and educational consensus" with respect to both the schemes and academic disciplines. The article goes on to discuss the concept of discipline and its application in bibliographic classification.
  16. Svoljsak, S.: Historical collections and library catalogs : provenance metadata, bibliographic standards and frameworks, and catalog functionalities (2022) 0.02 
    0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=1148,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The article discusses the importance of custodial history metadata in bibliographic standards, formats and frameworks, and in library catalogs. It analyzes the present situation and proposes some basic solutions that would make it possible for the custodial history metadata to be entered in a standardized way and to be functionally linked to the holdings metadata so that catalog users would be able to search and retrieve information on the most relevant copies in terms of their provenance. Visual simulations of various functionalities based on the search and results display interface of the Slovenian National Library's catalog are also included.
  17. Wu, S.: Implementing bibliographic enhancement data in academic library catalogs : an empirical study (2024) 0.02 
    0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=1159,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examines users' needs for bibliographic enhancement data (BIBED) in academic library catalogs. Qualitative data were collected through 30 academic users' activity logs and follow-up interviews. These 30 participants were recruited from a public university in the United States that has over 19,000 students enrolled and over 600 full-time faculty members. This study identified 19 types of BIBED useful for supporting the five user tasks proposed in the IFLA Library Reference Model and in seven other contexts, such as enhancing one's understanding, offering search instructions, and providing readers' advisory. Findings suggest that adopting BIBFRAME and Semantic Web technologies may enable academic library catalogs to provide BIBED to better meet user needs in various contexts.
  18. Walker, J.M.: Faceted vocabularies in catalog searches : provenance evidence vocabulary as search terms or limiters for a personal library collection (2023) 0.02 
    0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Genre/Form headings are an important means by which librarians provide users with contextual or descriptive information. To facilitate the discovery of resources with important provenance characteristics, the Marion E. Wade Center added terms from a controlled vocabulary to bibliographic records representing items in the C. S. Lewis personal library collection. The selected terms focus on features that have historically been of interest to visitors. The addition of these headings in the bibliographic records allows users to use these keywords to conduct a search or narrow their results, resulting in more flexibility to locate and select the resources that best meet their needs.
  19. Jaeger, L.: Wissenschaftler versus Wissenschaft (2020) 0.02 
    0.01845152 = product of:
  0.03690304 = sum of:
    0.03690304 = product of:
      0.07380608 = sum of:
        0.07380608 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07380608 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    2. 3.2020 14:08:22
  20. Ibrahim, G.M.; Taylor, M.: Krebszellen manipulieren Neurone : Gliome (2023) 0.02 
    0.01845152 = product of:
  0.03690304 = sum of:
    0.03690304 = product of:
      0.07380608 = sum of:
        0.07380608 = weight(_text_:22 in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07380608 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2023, H.10, S.22-24

Authors

Languages

  • e 121
  • d 29
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 145
  • el 22
  • m 2
  • p 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications