Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024116507 = product of:
  0.07234952 = sum of:
    0.07234952 = product of:
      0.10852428 = sum of:
        0.06682816 = weight(_text_:network in 5177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06682816 = score(doc=5177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.3444231 = fieldWeight in 5177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5177)
        0.041696113 = weight(_text_:29 in 5177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041696113 = score(doc=5177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5177)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bibliofile is a CD-ROM cataloguing product that provides LC MARC records. Available databases include English only, foreign language materials, audio-visual materials, as well as several that are more specialized. Bibliofile runs on a PC that may be connected to a network. Advantages over an online utility include lower cost, no telecommunication problems, no slow response times, fixed subscription rates with no hourly use charges, easy installation, searching and editing and good phone support. Disadvantages include no member-contributed records and no member holdings to use for interlibrary loan. A library should consider type and level of materials catalogued, existence of an interface with a local OPAC, total cataloguing time used, and other sources for ILL searching when considering bibliofile as a cataloguing alternative

Date

10. 9.2000 17:18:29

0.010299923 = product of:
  0.030899769 = sum of:
    0.030899769 = product of:
      0.046349652 = sum of:
        0.028640639 = weight(_text_:network in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028640639 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.14760989 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
        0.017709013 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017709013 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15257138 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.
Dr Howe and his colleagues do, however, believe that the study of diagrams can result in new insights. A figure showing new metabolic pathways in a cell, for example, may summarise hundreds of experiments. Since illustrations can convey important scientific concepts in this way, they think that browsing through related figures from different papers may help researchers come up with new theories. As Dr Howe puts it, "the unit of scientific currency is closer to the figure than to the paper." With this thought in mind, the team have created a website (viziometrics.org (http://viziometrics.org/) ) where the millions of images sorted by their program can be searched using key words. Their next plan is to extract the information from particular types of scientific figure, to create comprehensive "super" figures: a giant network of all the known chemical processes in a cell for example, or the best-available tree of life. At just one such superfigure per paper, though, the citation records of articles containing such all-embracing diagrams may very well undermine the correlation that prompted their creation in the first place. Call it the ultimate marriage of chart and science.

0.008486116 = product of:
  0.025458349 = sum of:
    0.025458349 = product of:
      0.076375045 = sum of:
        0.076375045 = weight(_text_:network in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076375045 = score(doc=5546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.3936264 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.