Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.044705484 = product of:
  0.11176371 = sum of:
    0.045269795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045269795 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2292)
    0.06649391 = sum of:
      0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029865343 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2292, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2292)
      0.036628567 = weight(_text_:22 in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036628567 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2292, 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=2292)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Digital materials are reshaping library collections and, by extension, traditional library practice for collecting, organizing, and preserving information. This paper uses OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database as a data source for examining questions relating to digital materials in library collections, including criteria for identifying digital materials algorithmically in MARC21 records; the quantity, types, characteristics, and holdings patterns of digital materials cataloged in WorldCat; and trends in WorldCat cataloging activity for digital materials over time. Issues pertaining to cataloging practice for digital materials and perspectives on digital holdings at the work level also are discussed. Analysis of the aggregate collection represented by the combined digital holdings in WorldCat affords a high-level perspective on historical patterns, suggests future trends, and supplies useful intelligence with which to inform decision making in a variety of areas.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.033911508 = product of:
  0.08477877 = sum of:
    0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060359728 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 6654, 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=6654)
    0.024419045 = product of:
      0.04883809 = sum of:
        0.04883809 = weight(_text_:22 in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04883809 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6654, 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=6654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

WorldCat, OCLC's bibliographic database, identifies books and the libraries that hold them. The holdings provide detailed information about the type and number of libraries that have acquired the material. Using this information, it is possible to infer the type of audience for which the material is intended. A quantitative measure, the audience level, is derived from the types of libraries that have selected the resource. The audience level can be used to refine discovery, analyze collections, advise readers, and enhance reference services.

Date

8.11.2008 19:22:53

0.012716815 = product of:
  0.031792037 = sum of:
    0.022634897 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022634897 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.1290374 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.009157142 = product of:
      0.018314283 = sum of:
        0.018314283 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018314283 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.012071946 = product of:
  0.060359728 = sum of:
    0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060359728 = score(doc=1584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 1584, 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=1584)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.010562953 = product of:
  0.052814763 = sum of:
    0.052814763 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052814763 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to elicit information from the users of the Wisconsin University at Madison online catalogue (Network Library System (NLS)). The General Library System (GLS) conducted focus group interviews with undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty. Undergraduate students tend to utilize subject searching capabilities. Graduate students and faculty utilize subject searching only as a last resort; they typically search by known author or title. A significant number of the participants reported experience with library online catalogues other than NLS, although the majority of faculty reported very little experience with other online catalogues. All the focus group participants, but particularly the undergraduate students, evidenced confusion between keyword searching and searching controlled vocabulary. Inclusion of circulation status in the bibliographic records was identified as an important feature of the catalogue

0.010562953 = product of:
  0.052814763 = sum of:
    0.052814763 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052814763 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The theory versus practice issue in library and information science education in general and in cataloguing education in particular has long been debated. Decreasing budgets, dependence on technology, the availability of bibliographic utilities, and the outsourcing of cataloguing may contribute to the debate and concern associated with cataloguing education. A new library and information services programme at University College of the University of Denver was designed to incorporate the research and scholarly thought and the practice of the library and information science discipline with other related disciplines. The cataloguing component developed for the programme utilizes active learning techniques supplemented by a theoretical core

0.007544966 = product of:
  0.03772483 = sum of:
    0.03772483 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772483 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper presents the first large-scale investigation of the users and uses of WorldCat.org, the world's largest bibliographic database and global union catalog. Using a mixed-methods approach involving focus group interviews with 120 participants, an online survey with 2,918 responses, and an analysis of transaction logs of approximately 15 million sessions from WorldCat.org, the study provides a new understanding of the context for global union catalog use. We find that WorldCat.org is accessed by a diverse population, with the three primary user groups being librarians, students, and academics. Use of the system is found to fall within three broad types of work-task (professional, academic, and leisure), and we also present an emergent taxonomy of search tasks that encompass known-item, unknown-item, and institutional information searches. Our results support the notion that union catalogs are primarily used for known-item searches, although the volume of traffic to WorldCat.org means that unknown-item searches nonetheless represent an estimated 250,000 sessions per month. Search engine referrals account for almost half of all traffic, but although WorldCat.org effectively connects users referred from institutional library catalogs to other libraries holding a sought item, users arriving from a search engine are less likely to connect to a library.

0.004883809 = product of:
  0.024419045 = sum of:
    0.024419045 = product of:
      0.04883809 = sum of:
        0.04883809 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04883809 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.0024887787 = product of:
  0.012443894 = sum of:
    0.012443894 = product of:
      0.024887787 = sum of:
        0.024887787 = weight(_text_:data in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024887787 = score(doc=5983,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support. Design/methodology/approach Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman's (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management. Findings Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices. Social implications Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright. Originality/value This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.

0.0024887787 = product of:
  0.012443894 = sum of:
    0.012443894 = product of:
      0.024887787 = sum of:
        0.024887787 = weight(_text_:data in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024887787 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Prior studies have shown high-level differences in people's perception and use of various information formats. However, the lack of a coherent and theoretically informed framework of elements of format has inhibited a nuanced understanding of the role that formats play in information behavior. This paper draws on theories from the field of rhetoric and composition to ground the study of information format in a social constructivist perspective that foregrounds action in context. Specifically, rhetorical genre theory is discussed in detail and the limitations of previous information behavior studies using rhetorical genre theory are explored. One of the main problems of earlier studies is confusing genres and their containers. This paper introduces and defines the concept of containers as typified ways of collecting and presenting texts of certain genres for publication. Building on rhetorical genre theory, the paper offers a theoretical exploration of the role that containers play in the formal and/or public sharing of information within discourse communities. An illustrative example of the concepts applied to data from an Institute of Museum and Library Services funded study is provided.