Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021358293 = product of:
  0.064074874 = sum of:
    0.064074874 = product of:
      0.12814975 = sum of:
        0.12814975 = weight(_text_:methodology in 710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12814975 = score(doc=710,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.60343444 = fieldWeight in 710, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Subject headings and genre terms are notoriously difficult to apply, yet are important for fiction. The current project functions as a proof of concept, using a text-mining methodology to identify affective information (emotion and tone) about fiction titles from professional book reviews as a potential first step in automating the subject analysis process. Findings are presented and discussed, comparing results to the range of aboutness and isness information in library cataloging records. The methodology is likewise presented, and how future work might expand on the current project to enhance catalog records through text-mining is explored.

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 10:22:00

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 1298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=1298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 10:22:14

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 5815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=5815,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5815, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5815)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

4. 8.2006 21:35:22

0.014903667 = product of:
  0.044711 = sum of:
    0.044711 = product of:
      0.089422 = sum of:
        0.089422 = weight(_text_:22 in 5309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089422 = score(doc=5309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5309, 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=5309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:07:22

0.012774572 = product of:
  0.038323715 = sum of:
    0.038323715 = product of:
      0.07664743 = sum of:
        0.07664743 = weight(_text_:22 in 4155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07664743 = score(doc=4155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4155, 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=4155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 10:22:39

0.012331214 = product of:
  0.03699364 = sum of:
    0.03699364 = product of:
      0.07398728 = sum of:
        0.07398728 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07398728 = score(doc=2683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.348393 = fieldWeight in 2683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The objective of the paper is to analyse the information (communication) process of fiction in order to increase our understanding of the different actors and factors involved in information processing. The methodology is that of the grounded theory, where previous studies of information process and fiction content representation are compared with the results of an empirical study in which library patrons and library professionals were asked to index and abstract five different kinds of novels.

0.012043982 = product of:
  0.036131945 = sum of:
    0.036131945 = product of:
      0.07226389 = sum of:
        0.07226389 = weight(_text_:22 in 8191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07226389 = score(doc=8191,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 8191, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bibliotheek en samenleving. 22(1994) no.11, S.22-23

0.010645477 = product of:
  0.03193643 = sum of:
    0.03193643 = product of:
      0.06387286 = sum of:
        0.06387286 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06387286 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.010569612 = product of:
  0.031708833 = sum of:
    0.031708833 = product of:
      0.063417666 = sum of:
        0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 7728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063417666 = score(doc=7728,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 7728, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7728)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports research that used descriptor subfields in MLA Bibliography online to quantify literary warrant in the domain of scholarly work about fiction (i.e., 'fiction studies'). The research used Hulme's concept of literary warrant and Kernan's description of the interactive processes of literature and literary scholarship to justify quantifying existing subject indexing in existing bibliographic records as a first step in the domain analysis of a field. It was found that certain of the MLA Bibliography onle's descriptor subfields and certain of the descriptor terms within those subfields occured more often than would occur by chance. The techniques used in the research might be extended to domain analysis of other fields. Use of the methodology might improve the ability to evaluate existing and to design future subject access systems

0.010569612 = product of:
  0.031708833 = sum of:
    0.031708833 = product of:
      0.063417666 = sum of:
        0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063417666 = score(doc=623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To reflect on an editorial from an earlier issue entitled "The banning of books in libraries". Design/methodology/approach - A discussion of the argument presented in the original editorial and its connection to present-day concerns over the use and dissemination of information and links to other issues, together with the maintenance of a professional ethos in the face of those concerns. Findings - A set of moral absolutes does exist from which librarians can derive an ethos for the operation of their services. Such absolutes take on a greater significance in the complex moral climate in which we now live, but are now under threat. Practical implications - This article calls on library and information professionals to maintain their stand in the face of increasing pressures to compromise attitudes. Originality/value - Reflects on the continuing (and increased) importance of professional values.

0.010569612 = product of:
  0.031708833 = sum of:
    0.031708833 = product of:
      0.063417666 = sum of:
        0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063417666 = score(doc=859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Aims to focus on the correct attitude of the librarian when selecting fiction. Design/methodology/approach - The article discusses the banning of books in libraries from the context of what was perceived as a moral decline in the literature at the time that the article was written in 1928. Findings - The author's view is that no novel written has sufficient quality to be a source of trouble between a public library and its people. It should be bought if the reviewers praise it enough; it should be circulated freely until someone objects; and in that event it should be withdrawn from the open shelf, but it should be left in the catalogue. The person who wants it will ask for it, and if that person is of mature years, may be allowed, without question, to have it. Originality/value - The article provides information of a historical nature, of value to information professionals.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the information needs of one user group, public library fiction readers, in order to reveal a design of an online community at the local level. Examination of user-generated metadata can reveal new approaches to information architecture. Design/methodology/approach - A literature review into behaviors of virtual communities; surveying public library readers regarding search behavior characteristics - the survey included a sample "tagging" exercise to determine whether public library communities could create meaningful metadata for retrieval purposes. Findings - The use of relevance as an indicator of tag quality is flawed: in a survey, public library readers "tagged" the novel The Da Vinci Code. The resulting collection of tags provided a richer description of the book than did the social book-related web site www.librarything.com. Tag collections can be broken down into different categories, each reflecting a different "facet" of the novel: character, plot, subject/topic, setting, and genre. Faceted structure to tags enables users to choose the context of the tag to the novel. Research limitations/implications - This research is relevant in the world of social networking sites, online communities, or any other such system where users generate descriptive metadata. Examination of such metadata can reveal facets, which can guide the architect/librarian in the design of a versatile architecture. Originality/value - This research resulted in a manifold design for a public-library-based online community that allowed for the full expression of users' information needs. This research introduces a faceted structure to current approaches for user-generated metadata, adding versatility to search terms.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=4536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Using the public library context, this paper seeks to present research identifying perceived characteristics of fiction readers and their associated genres, with a particular emphasis on the reader of Black British and Asian fiction in the English language. Design/methodology/approach - The paper applies personal construct theory and the associated repertory grid to a mixed method study involving 15 repertory grid interviews, conducted with librarianship Master's students at a UK university. Findings - The findings regarding the perceived profile of the reader were similar to those reported in previous sociological research, but new constructs emerged regarding certain perceived characteristics of both readers and genres. Research limitations/implications - The method and findings provide a starting-point for future research in materials portraying, and originating from, minority ethnic communities. With more repeated constructs and a larger sample size, future research could statistically investigate the significance of potential trends and apparent relationships between data. Practical implications - The paper provides new data regarding the nature and readership of minority ethnic fiction, informing the improvement of its provision and promotion by public libraries. Social implications - It is hoped that longer-term effects will be to increase both public and professional understanding of fiction written by members of minority ethnic communities, and of its potential contribution to the wider body of literature in the English language. Originality/value - The paper applies personal construct theory and the associated repertory grid technique to a new area of research and practice, with new data having been generated concerning the perceived characteristics of fiction genres, and of their readers.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=4548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The subject description of novels in library catalogues is traditionally limited to the classification number with no description of the story. On the other hand, enthusiastic readers describe novels by tags or reviews in Web services. The purpose of this paper is to analyse readers' descriptions of novels and suggest an enhancement of the catalogue record which would be useful to the readers. Design/methodology/approach - The original research involved a content analysis of tags and reviews written by users in the online bookstore Amazon.com, the online reader advisory service LibraryThing, and the reading promotion project Primorci beremo. The results were compared to previously published results. Findings - The characteristics that most frequently elicit comments by readers are: the names of the creators and literary characters, geographic names and the titles of works, the time frame in which the story takes place, and the literary genre. Their evaluation of a novel was expressed with an opinion, an analysis, or a professional review. Awards were mentioned, and readers often also expressed their personal experience with the novel. They connected the novel with a sequel or series, with otherwise related novels, movies, etc. Often, pictures of the cover and other factual data were included. Research limitations/implications - Research was limited to readers' experiences and descriptions of literary works written in prose. Practical implications - It is suggested that the time frame, genre and awards received should be included in the functional requirements models. Originality/value - Original research was conducted over a longer period of time. The results were re-evaluated and compared to previously published results from studies by different researchers.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate fiction readers' interest criteria when selecting novels in library catalogs for various search tasks. Design/methodology/approach - The data of the book selection behavior from 80 genuine fiction readers were collected using recorded interviews and conversations. The data were qualitatively analyzed. Reuter's categorization of the components of aesthetic relevance has contributed to the construction of interest dimensions. Findings - A five-dimension categorization of interest criteria is presented based on fiction readers' interpretations of the influential factors in fiction book selection in different search tasks. The findings revealed that readers apply the identified interest criteria in a flexible and multiphase way depending to the search task and the system used. The findings showed a context-related pattern in readers' fiction book selections. A combination of readers' search capacities, "behind the eyes" knowledge, affective factors and a well-functioning interaction with a system used results in a successful book selection. Originality/value - A five-dimension categorization of adult fiction readers' interest criteria was created based on their search behaviors in library catalogs. The results provide a systematic step toward a comprehensive understanding of readers' fiction book selection in digital environments.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 5461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=5461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 5461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Despite the social, educational and therapeutic benefits of book clubs, little is known about which books participants are likely to have read. In response, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the public bookshelves of those that have joined a group within the Goodreads social network site. Design/methodology/approach Books listed as read by members of 50 large English-language Goodreads groups - with a genre focus or other theme - were compiled by author and title. Findings Recent and youth-oriented fiction dominate the 50 books most read by book club members, whilst almost half are works of literature frequently taught at the secondary and postsecondary level (literary classics). Whilst J.K. Rowling is almost ubiquitous (at least 63 per cent as frequently listed as other authors in any group, including groups for other genres), most authors, including Shakespeare (15 per cent), Goulding (6 per cent) and Hemmingway (9 per cent), are little read by some groups. Nor are individual recent literary prize winners or works in languages other than English frequently read. Research limitations/implications Although these results are derived from a single popular website, knowing more about what book club members are likely to have read should help participants, organisers and moderators. For example, recent literary prize winners might be a good choice, given that few members may have read them. Originality/value This is the first large scale study of book group members' reading patterns. Whilst typical reading is likely to vary by group theme and average age, there seems to be a mainly female canon of about 14 authors and 19 books that Goodreads book club members are likely to have read.

0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 867, 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=867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) system, extensively used in Japanese libraries, was devised in 1929. It is difficult to use NDC to classify world literature, such as fiction in English by non American, non British writers. This is not necessarily straightforward in other classification schemes but a survey of 40 Japanese university libraries, of which 24 responded, showed remarkable inconsistencies in the treatment of 22 world literature authors. NDC clearly needs updating to deal with this problem

0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 31) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=31,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 31, 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=31)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Scandinavian public library quarterly. 25(1992) no.4, S.22-24,29

0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 1636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=1636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1636, 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=1636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:06:22