Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010989259 = product of:
  0.043957036 = sum of:
    0.035903532 = weight(_text_:case in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035903532 = score(doc=3035,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.20608193 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.008053505 = product of:
      0.01610701 = sum of:
        0.01610701 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01610701 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, 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=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

A PICTURE is said to be worth a thousand words. That metaphor might be expected to pertain a fortiori in the case of scientific papers, where a figure can brilliantly illuminate an idea that might otherwise be baffling. Papers with figures in them should thus be easier to grasp than those without. They should therefore reach larger audiences and, in turn, be more influential simply by virtue of being more widely read. But are they?

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.

0.0069712265 = product of:
  0.055769812 = sum of:
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 5810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=5810,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 5810, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5810)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

A major library classification scheme has long been standard classification framework for information sources in traditional library environment, and text classification (TC) becomes a popular and attractive tool of organizing digital information. This paper gives an overview of previous projects and studies on TC using major library classification schemes, and summarizes a discussion of TC research challenges.

0.0058467137 = product of:
  0.04677371 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=5177,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 5177, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5177)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

College and undergraduate libraries. 5(1998) no.2, S.59-67

0.0047248583 = product of:
  0.037798867 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=5546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Suggest reasons why there is no operational OPAC station yet in Iceland. Obstacles include the lack of compatability among computer systems adopted by the major libraries, the differing classification schemes used by them and the lack of a controlled indexing vocabulary or thesaurus for subject analysis in the Icelandic language. The Rejkjavik Municipal Library and the National Hospital Library, both users of the DOBIS/LIBIS system, will be the first users of a potential network of OPACs.

0.004176224 = product of:
  0.033409793 = sum of:
    0.033409793 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033409793 = score(doc=6107,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 6107, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6107)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

There is currently a lively debate about the role of the library catalogue and its relationship to other resource discovery tools. An example of this debate is the recent publication of a report commissioned by the Library of Congress on "the changing nature of the catalogue" As part of this debate, the role of union catalogues is also being re-examined. Some commentators have suggested that union catalogues, by virtue of their size, can aggregate both supply and demand, thus increasing the chance that a relatively little-used resource will be discovered by somebody for whom it is relevant. During the past year, the National Library of Australia (NLA) has been considering the future of its catalogue and its role in the resource discovery and delivery process. The review was prompted, in part, by the redevelopment of the Australian union catalogue and its exposure on the web as a free public service, badged as Libraries Australia. The NLA examined the enablers and inhibitors to proposition "that it replace its catalogue with Libraries Australia, as the primary database to be searched by users". Flowing from this review, the NLA is aiming to undertake a number of tasks to move in the medium to long term towards a scenario in which it could deprecate its local catalogue. Bezug zum Calhoun-Report

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=6103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 6103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6103)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

A draft of Functional Requirements for Authority Records (FRAR) was made available for worldwide review on IFLANET from July through October 2005. The FRANAR Working Group received comments from 12 individuals and 13 institutions (including 6 national libraries and 3 national-level cataloguing committees). The working group expresses its appreciation to all who took the time to prepare comments. The comments received were compiled into a comments log which totaled 145 pages. Seven members of the Working Group met at the Koninklijke Bibliothek, The Hague, Netherlands, on December 9, 2005, to consider these comments and to start revising the draft to reflect decisions made in response to the comments. The group was able to deal with about two-thirds of the comments during the meeting and, since the December meeting has had a series of four conference calls to complete discussions of the remaining comments, with additional calls anticipated before the Seoul meetings.

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=6108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 6108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6108)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Libraries have a large stake in search protocols because library systems are diverse yet library users need to access multiple sites without learning the search syntax of each site. This paper reviews and compares the relative advantages of several of the newest search protocols and query languages: Search via URL (SRU), OpenSearch, Contextual Query Language (CQL), and XQuery. The models for SRU and OpenSearch operations are described in order to explain differences in functionality - keyword search and simple data record return for OpenSearch and richer search with multiple format data return for SRU. The advantages of CQL are described along with possible complementary uses of the highly detailed and complex XQuery being developed for XML.

0.0029530365 = product of:
  0.023624292 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=6105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 6105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6105)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Die Deutsche Bibliothek, the Library of Congress, and OCLC Online Computer Library Center are jointly developing a virtual international authority file (VIAF) for personal names which links authority records from the world's national bibliographic agencies and will be made freely available on the Web. The goals of the project are to prove the viability of automatically linking authority records from different national authority files and to demonstrate its benefits. The authority and bibliographic files from the Library of Congress and Die Deutsche Bibliothek were used to create the initial VIAF which contains over six million names with over a half million links. A key aspect of the project was the development of automated name matching algorithms which use information from both authority records and the corresponding bibliographic records. The practicality of algorithmically linking the personal names between national authority files was demonstrated; seventy percent of the authority records for personal names common to both files were automatically linked with an error rate of less than one percent. The long-term goal of the VIAF project is to combine the authoritative names from many national libraries and other significant sources into a shared global authority service.