Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Lorenzo, L.; Mak, L.; Smeltekop, N.: FAST Headings in MODS : Michigan State University libraries digital repository case study (2023) 0.05
    0.046581723 = product of:
      0.093163446 = sum of:
        0.093163446 = product of:
          0.18632689 = sum of:
            0.18632689 = weight(_text_:headings in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.18632689 = score(doc=1177,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.75018746 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The Michigan State University Libraries (MSUL) digital repository contains numerous collections of openly available material. Since 2016, the digital repository has been using Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject headings as its primary subject vocabulary in order to streamline faceting, display, and search. The MSUL FAST use case presents some challenges that are not addressed by existing MARC-focused FAST tools. This paper will outline the MSUL digital repository team's justification for including FAST headings in the digital repository as well as workflows for adding FAST headings to Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) metadata, their maintenance, and utilization for discovery.
  2. Wu, M.; Liu, Y.-H.; Brownlee, R.; Zhang, X.: Evaluating utility and automatic classification of subject metadata from Research Data Australia (2021) 0.02
    0.019963596 = product of:
      0.039927192 = sum of:
        0.039927192 = product of:
          0.079854384 = sum of:
            0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.079854384 = score(doc=453,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper, we present a case study of how well subject metadata (comprising headings from an international classification scheme) has been deployed in a national data catalogue, and how often data seekers use subject metadata when searching for data. Through an analysis of user search behaviour as recorded in search logs, we find evidence that users utilise the subject metadata for data discovery. Since approximately half of the records ingested by the catalogue did not include subject metadata at the time of harvest, we experimented with automatic subject classification approaches in order to enrich these records and to provide additional support for user search and data discovery. Our results show that automatic methods work well for well represented categories of subject metadata, and these categories tend to have features that can distinguish themselves from the other categories. Our findings raise implications for data catalogue providers; they should invest more effort to enhance the quality of data records by providing an adequate description of these records for under-represented subject categories.
  3. Sewing, S.: Bestandserhaltung und Archivierung : Koordinierung auf der Basis eines gemeinsamen Metadatenformates in den deutschen und österreichischen Bibliotheksverbünden (2021) 0.01
    0.010407712 = product of:
      0.020815425 = sum of:
        0.020815425 = product of:
          0.04163085 = sum of:
            0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04163085 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051211677 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05