Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Connaway, L.S."
  1. Connaway, L.S.; Johnson, D.W.; Searing, S.E.: Online catalogs from the users' perspective : the use of focus group interviews (1997) 0.02 
    0.018592525 = product of:
  0.03718505 = sum of:
    0.03718505 = product of:
      0.0743701 = sum of:
        0.0743701 = weight(_text_:online in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0743701 = score(doc=602,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  2. O'Neill, E.T.; Connaway, L.S.; Dickey, T.J.: Estimating the audience level for library resources (2008) 0.01 
    0.014144942 = product of:
  0.028289884 = sum of:
    0.028289884 = product of:
      0.05657977 = sum of:
        0.05657977 = weight(_text_:22 in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05657977 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8.11.2008 19:22:53
  3. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.01 
    0.014144942 = product of:
  0.028289884 = sum of:
    0.028289884 = product of:
      0.05657977 = sum of:
        0.05657977 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05657977 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 4.1997 21:10:19
  4. Radford, M.L.; Kitzie, V.; Mikitish, S.; Floegel, D.; Radford, G.P.; Connaway, L.S.: "People are reading your work," : scholarly identity and social networking sites (2020) 0.01 
    0.011501143 = product of:
  0.023002286 = sum of:
    0.023002286 = product of:
      0.04600457 = sum of:
        0.04600457 = weight(_text_:online in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04600457 = score(doc=5983,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  5. Connaway, L.S.; Budd, J.M.; Kochtanek, T.R.: ¬An investigation of the use of an online catalogue : user characteristics and transaction log analysis (1995) 0.01 
    0.011268772 = product of:
  0.022537544 = sum of:
    0.022537544 = product of:
      0.04507509 = sum of:
        0.04507509 = weight(_text_:online in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04507509 = score(doc=307,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reports an examination of the results of 114 sessions on the online catalogue, at the Ellis Library, Missouri University at Columbia, to determine what types of searches were conducted and what search modes and fields (title, author) were used. Examination of tranaction logs revealed that title and author searches predominated and that the opportunity to construct Boolean searches was rarely taken advantage of. The searchers themselves reported that they were, on the whole, experienced at using the system; most searched the catalogue at least once a week. This is reflected in the relatively low instance of error and in the fact that most searches produced at least some hits. The majority of errors that were made in the process of searching were typographical
  6. Lavoie, B.F.; Connaway, L.S.; O'Neill, E.T.: Mapping WorldCat's digital landscape (2007) 0.01 
    0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Wakeling, S.; Clough, P.; Connaway, L.S.; Sen, B.; Tomás, D.: Users and uses of a global union catalog : a mixed-methods study of WorldCat.org (2017) 0.01 
    0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  8. Lavoie, B.; Connaway, L.S.; Dempsey, L.: Anatomy of aggregate collections : the example of Google print for libraries (2005) 0.01 
    0.0053043533 = product of:
  0.010608707 = sum of:
    0.010608707 = product of:
      0.021217413 = sum of:
        0.021217413 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021217413 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.12.2011 14:08:22

Authors

Years

Types

Themes