Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.037582483 = product of:
  0.056373723 = sum of:
    0.03486581 = weight(_text_:search in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03486581 = score(doc=1175,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19953834 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
    0.021507913 = product of:
      0.043015826 = sum of:
        0.043015826 = weight(_text_:engines in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043015826 = score(doc=1175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.16840704 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Much progress has been made in aligning library services with changing (and increasingly digital and networked) research and learning environments. At times, however, this progress has been uneven, fragmented, and reactive. As libraries continue to engage with an ever-shifting information landscape, it is apparent that their efforts would be facilitated by a shared view of how library services should be organized and surfaced in these new settings and contexts. Recent discussions in a variety of areas underscore this point: * Institutional repositories: what is the role of the library in collecting, managing, and preserving institutional scholarly output, and what services should be offered to faculty and students in this regard? * Metasearch: how can the fragmented pieces of library collections be brought together to simplify and improve the search experience of the user? * E-learning and course management systems: how can library services be lifted out of traditional library environments and inserted into the emerging workflows of "e-scholars" and "e-learners"? * Exposing library collections to search engines: how can libraries surface their collections in the general Web search environment, and how can users be provisioned with better tools to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape? In each case, there is as yet no shared picture of the library to bring to bear on these questions; there is little consensus on the specific library services that should be expected in these environments, how they should be organized, and how they should be presented.

0.015495917 = product of:
  0.04648775 = sum of:
    0.04648775 = weight(_text_:search in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04648775 = score(doc=1200,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2660511 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In April 2002, the dominant Internet search engine, GoogleT, introduced a beta version of its expert service, Google Answers, with little fanfare. Almost immediately the buzz within the information community focused on implications for reference librarians. Google had already been lauded as the cheaper and faster alternative for finding information, and declining reference statistics and Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) use in academic libraries had been attributed in part to its popularity. One estimate suggests that the Google search engine handles more questions in a day and a half than all the libraries in the country provide in a year. Indeed, Craig Silverstein, Google's Director of Technology, indicated that the raison d'être for the search engine was to "seem as smart as a reference librarian," even as he acknowledged that this goal was "hundreds of years away". Bill Arms had reached a similar conclusion regarding the more nuanced reference functions in a thought-provoking article in this journal on automating digital libraries. But with the launch of Google Answers, the power of "brute force computing" and simple algorithms could be combined with human intelligence to represent a market-driven alternative to library reference services. Google Answers is part of a much larger trend to provide networked reference assistance. Expert services have sprung up in both the commercial and non-profit sector. Libraries too have responded to the Web, providing a suite of services through the virtual reference desk (VRD) movement, from email reference to chat reference to collaborative services that span the globe. As the Internet's content continues to grow and deepen - encompassing over 40 million web sites - it has been met by a groundswell of services to find and filter information. These services include an extensive range from free to fee-based, cost-recovery to for-profit, and library providers to other information providers - both new and traditional. As academic libraries look towards the future in a dynamic and competitive information landscape, what implications do these services have for their programs, and what can be learned from them to improve library offerings? This paper presents the results of a modest study conducted by Cornell University Library (CUL) to compare and contrast its digital reference services with those of Google Answers. The study provided an opportunity for librarians to shift their focus from fearing the impact of Google, as usurper of the library's role and diluter of the academic experience, to gaining insights into how Google's approach to service development and delivery has made it so attractive.

0.0068112854 = product of:
  0.020433856 = sum of:
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 6478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=6478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6478, 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=6478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16. 8.2001 18:03:22

0.0068112854 = product of:
  0.020433856 = sum of:
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3069, 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=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 7.2016 16:22:54