Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.07253622 = product of:
  0.10880433 = sum of:
    0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 5961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058109686 = score(doc=5961,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 5961, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5961)
    0.05069464 = product of:
      0.10138928 = sum of:
        0.10138928 = weight(_text_:engines in 5961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10138928 = score(doc=5961,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 5961, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Journals play a critical role in the scientific process because they evaluate the quality of incoming papers and offer an organizing filter for search. However, the role of journals has been called into question because new preprint archives and academic search engines make it easier to find articles independent of the journals that publish them. Research on this issue is complicated by the deeply confounded relationship between article quality and journal reputation. We present an innovative proxy for individual article quality that is divorced from the journal's reputation or impact factor: the number of citations to preprints posted on arXiv.org. Using this measure to study three subfields of physics that were early adopters of arXiv, we show that prior estimates of the effect of journal reputation on an individual article's impact (measured by citations) are likely inflated. While we find that higher-quality preprints in these subfields are now less likely to be published in journals compared to prior years, we find little systematic evidence that the role of journal reputation on article performance has declined.

0.07086621 = product of:
  0.10629931 = sum of:
    0.0657436 = weight(_text_:search in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0657436 = score(doc=1063,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.37625307 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
    0.04055571 = product of:
      0.08111142 = sum of:
        0.08111142 = weight(_text_:engines in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08111142 = score(doc=1063,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.31755137 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

The volume of scientific literature typically far exceeds the ability of scientists to identify and utilize all relevant information in their research. Improvements to the accessibility of scientific literature, allowing scientists to locate more relevant research within a given time, have the potential to dramatically improve communication and progress in science. With the web, scientists now have very convenient access to an increasing amount of literature that previously required trips to the library, inter-library loan delays, or substantial effort in locating the source. Evidence shows that usage increases when access is more convenient, and maximizing the usage of the scientific record benefits all of society. Although availability varies greatly by discipline, over a million research articles are freely available on the web. Some journals and conferences provide free access online, others allow authors to post articles on the web, and others allow authors to purchase the right to post their articles on the web. In this article we investigate the impact of free online availability by analyzing citation rates. We do not discuss methods of creating free online availability, such as time-delayed release or publication/membership/conference charges. Online availability of an article may not be expected to greatly improve access and impact by itself. For example, efficient means of locating articles via web search engines or specialized search services is required, and a substantial percentage of the literature needs to be indexed by these search services before it is worthwhile for many scientists to use them. Computer science is a forerunner in web availability -- a substantial percentage of the literature is online and available through search engines such as Google (google.com), or specialized services such as ResearchIndex (researchindex.org). Even so, the greatest impact of the online availability of computer science literature is likely yet to come, because comprehensive search services and more powerful search methods have only become available recently. We analyzed 119,924 conference articles in computer science and related disciplines, obtained from DBLP (dblp.uni-trier.de). In computer science, conference articles are typically formal publications and are often more prestigious than journal articles, with acceptance rates at some conferences below 10%. Citation counts and online availability were estimated using ResearchIndex. The analysis excludes self-citations, where a citation is considered to be a self-citation if one or more of the citing and cited authors match.

0.047340807 = product of:
  0.14202242 = sum of:
    0.14202242 = weight(_text_:search in 4568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14202242 = score(doc=4568,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.8127996 = fieldWeight in 4568, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4568)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the Electronic Book (EB) standard developed by the Sony Corporation. It defines compatibility with ISO 9660, the international standard for file structures on CD-ROM. The EB standard defines search methods according to word search, endword search, keyword search, menu search, multi search, graphic search and linking. Provides a summary of EB players covering the Sony DD1-EX, DD8, DD-DR1 and Panasonic KXEBP1. Discusses EB software

0.03371857 = product of:
  0.050577857 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

0.026974857 = product of:
  0.040462285 = sum of:
    0.026839713 = weight(_text_:search in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026839713 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.15360467 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.013622572 = product of:
      0.027245143 = sum of:
        0.027245143 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027245143 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

0.023243874 = product of:
  0.06973162 = sum of:
    0.06973162 = weight(_text_:search in 3790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06973162 = score(doc=3790,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 3790, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3790)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Google Book Search, initially released as Google Print, allows the full-text searching of millions of books supplied by both publishers and libraries. More than 10,000 publishers and dozens of research libraries contribute. The Library Project is significant because it is a partnership with a commercial entity, because Google is funding the digitization, because the project exists on such a massive scale, and because of the speed with which so many works have been and are being scanned. The aspect that has created the most controversy, and legal action, is that some libraries are contributing works that are protected by copyright. A fascinating and critical debate has arisen around copyright protection, the fair use privilege, and what these mean in the digital age.

Object

Google Book Search

0.022366427 = product of:
  0.06709928 = sum of:
    0.06709928 = weight(_text_:search in 8747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06709928 = score(doc=8747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 8747, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8747)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Contains extensive beginning and advanced interactive tutorials and exercises to teach SGML and uses DynaText software to manage, browse and search the text, thus demonstrating the features of one of the most widely known programs available for SGML marked-up text

0.01816343 = product of:
  0.054490287 = sum of:
    0.054490287 = product of:
      0.10898057 = sum of:
        0.10898057 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10898057 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5919, 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=5919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Infodoc. 19(1993) H.3, S.20-22

0.01816343 = product of:
  0.054490287 = sum of:
    0.054490287 = product of:
      0.10898057 = sum of:
        0.10898057 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10898057 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4702, 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=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Advances in librarianship. 22(1998), S.59-75

0.017893143 = product of:
  0.053679425 = sum of:
    0.053679425 = weight(_text_:search in 8728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053679425 = score(doc=8728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 8728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8728)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Electronic Text Center at the University of Virginia combines an online archive of thousands of SGML-encoded electronic texts, all available through a single piece of search software, with a library-based center housing hardware and software suitable for the creation and analysis of text. Through ongoing training sessions and support of individual teaching and research projects, the Center is building a diverse and expanding use community locally, and providing a potential model for similar enterprises at other institutions

0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 6664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=6664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6664, 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=6664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.181-247

0.015815454 = product of:
  0.04744636 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=3226,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Academic libraries today are faced with the prospect of numerous alternatives to traditional printed indexes to the primary literature. Not only are many indexes made available by publishers on CD-ROM products, but most of these products can be acquired on computer tape for local mounting. This happy situation is further augmented by the availability of these products through mediated search services such as Dialog and end user services such as OCLC FirstSearch. Choosing the best alternative becomes a matter of estimating demand and comparing costs for each type of access. These estimates are complicated by lack of information on how often patrons will use a given alternative and by lack of qualitative data. Results of comparisons made at Trinity and Clemson Universities provide some revealing benchmarks that can help to place a quantitative framework around the decision process

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 8416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=8416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 8416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8416)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews the 6 principal forces driving electronic information publishing forward: volume of information; need to search for information; information richness; demands of management and distribution of information; low cost technologies (such as CD-ROM) and environmental impact making paper less attractive. Lists the corresponding forces inhibiting this change from print to electronic publishing; habit; incompatible standards; incompatible authoring processes; display incompatibilities; and portability limitations. Concludes with a list of key areas emerging for electronic information on CD-ROM; reference materials; catalogues; bibliographic and demographic data; merketing materials; educational materials; and records (replacing microfilm and microfiche)

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=4478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents a simple notation for describing the internal structure of a document and contrasts it with other more conventional notations in particular those related to subject classification systems, and those for bibliographic purposes, codes such as those of SGML. Such a notation should assist the science of human messaging through: permitting hypotheses to be more readily expressed and/or tested concerning document structure, and facilitating the formation of taxonomies of documents based on their structures. Such a notation should also be of practical value in contributing to document specification, building and testing, and possibly also contribute to new generations of information retrieval systems which link retrieval against record databases to the search systems internal to specific documents. The notation is at present limited to linear documents, but extensions to it to accomodate documents in non linear form (e.g. hypertext documents) and/or existing in physically distributed form, could usefully be constructed. Provides examples of the application of the notation

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 3000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=3000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 3000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3000)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a 1996 questionnaire survey, conducted among medical faculty members at the medical schools of Tel Aviv University, Ben Gurion University and the Technion, Haifa, to determine the extent of use of electronic periodicals compared with printed periodicals. Level of use of electronic periodicals was found to be very low, reading of these periodicals was infrequent and their use as a publishing medium was close to zero. Respondents were aware of some advantages of electronic periodicals but most doubted their value for academic promotion and consequently avoided using them for publishing. The low interest in reading electronic periodicals was attributed to: the small number of periodicals; lack of full recognition of their scientific value; sheer conservatism; inefficient search practices; and the inconvenience of reading from a computer screen. concludes with recommendations for improving the situation

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Increased reliance on electronic resources requires examination of the roles of librarians in several key ways. This paper addresses the need for further research into three important areas of electronic publishing. How is the change to digital information sources affecting the scholarly work of college and university students? Previous research shows that students rely on Web and online resources and ask for less help from librarians. We do not know, however, how these changes will affect the learning and scholarly work of college and university students. Research is also needed to determine how the differences between separate article and full journal databases affect the way research is done. What are the implications for scholarship of decisions being made about what publishers publish and what librarians purchase? Finally, are librarians--as intermediaries to the search process--still necessary in a digital age? Online systems are designed to be used independently but that may not always yield the best results.

0.012652363 = product of:
  0.037957087 = sum of:
    0.037957087 = weight(_text_:search in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037957087 = score(doc=596,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.21722981 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There is an "information burst" going on in our world. Therefore we think more about the role of information in modern society and in our personal life. The political waves of the peaceful revolutionary process virtually start to erase the borders of the countries drawn on the maps. A little more than ten years ago we had not even a concept for "Belarusian-German relations", because both countries "the new united Germany and the Republic of Belarus did not exist on the maps of the world. Today the communication between our countries covers all aspects of public life "culture" science and education. We have laid a foundation for our economic and cultural cooperation. We already have had some experience in the joint solution of internal and international problems. And "what is most striking" the warm human contacts of the people consolidate and accelerate the process of mutual understanding between our countries and broaden our view. Today no country in the world can yield their citizens more freedom of choice than the "state" of the Internet. The people, freely migrating in a boundless information space, know how to use the invaluable treasures of human thought and creatively increase the achievements of mankind by intellectual work. These people become the pride of every country in our time. In educating, shaping and supporting such persons we see a new social role of the libraries. It is clearly visible that libraries turn into modern information centers. The introduction of new information know-how and the access to electronic information by means of an electronic library satisfy the increasing need of effective and comprehensive information. All steps of the work with documents (publication "search" delivery) are automated. The fast electronic delivery of documents is promoted by the growth of global information networks, by the increase of transfer rates of dates" by the capability of online search in the electronic catalogues and databases connected with the automated systems of the ordering of copies, by the technical equipment and software of scanning and recognition of the text.

0.011352143 = product of:
  0.03405643 = sum of:
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 4551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=4551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4551, 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=4551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.1996 21:39:19

0.011352143 = product of:
  0.03405643 = sum of:
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4988, 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=4988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

IATUL proceedings (new series). 4(1995), S.15-22