Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026321702 = product of:
  0.052643403 = sum of:
    0.042968635 = weight(_text_:space in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042968635 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.17296642 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.009674768 = product of:
      0.019349536 = sum of:
        0.019349536 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019349536 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Google's December 2004 announcement of its intention to collaborate with five major research libraries - Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, and the New York Public Library - to digitize and surface their print book collections in the Google searching universe has, predictably, stirred conflicting opinion, with some viewing the project as a welcome opportunity to enhance the visibility of library collections in new environments, and others wary of Google's prospective role as gateway to these collections. The project has been vigorously debated on discussion lists and blogs, with the participating libraries commonly referred to as "the Google 5". One point most observers seem to concede is that the questions raised by this initiative are both timely and significant. The Google Print Library Project (GPLP) has galvanized a long overdue, multi-faceted discussion about library print book collections. The print book is core to library identity and practice, but in an era of zero-sum budgeting, it is almost inevitable that print book budgets will decline as budgets for serials, digital resources, and other materials expand. As libraries re-allocate resources to accommodate changing patterns of user needs, print book budgets may be adversely impacted. Of course, the degree of impact will depend on a library's perceived mission. A public library may expect books to justify their shelf-space, with de-accession the consequence of minimal use. A national library, on the other hand, has a responsibility to the scholarly and cultural record and may seek to collect comprehensively within particular areas, with the attendant obligation to secure the long-term retention of its print book collections. The combination of limited budgets, changing user needs, and differences in library collection strategies underscores the need to think about a collective, or system-wide, print book collection - in particular, how can an inter-institutional system be organized to achieve goals that would be difficult, and/or prohibitively expensive, for any one library to undertake individually [4]? Mass digitization programs like GPLP cast new light on these and other issues surrounding the future of library print book collections, but at this early stage, it is light that illuminates only dimly. It will be some time before GPLP's implications for libraries and library print book collections can be fully appreciated and evaluated. But the strong interest and lively debate generated by this initiative suggest that some preliminary analysis - premature though it may be - would be useful, if only to undertake a rough mapping of the terrain over which GPLP potentially will extend. At the least, some early perspective helps shape interesting questions for the future, when the boundaries of GPLP become settled, workflows for producing and managing the digitized materials become systematized, and usage patterns within the GPLP framework begin to emerge.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.021484317 = product of:
  0.08593727 = sum of:
    0.08593727 = weight(_text_:space in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08593727 = score(doc=740,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.34593284 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=740)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to understand how users know when to stop searching for more information when the information space is so saturated that there is no certainty that the relevant information has been identified. Design/methodology/approach - Faculty, undergraduate and graduate students participated in focus group interviews to investigate what leads them to satisfice their information needs. Findings - Academic library users describe both qualitative and quantitative criteria, which lead them to make rational choices determining when "enough" information satisfices their need. The situational context of both the participants' specific information need and their role in academic society affects every stage of their search - from the selection of the first resource, to ongoing search strategies, to decisions on how much information is enough. Originality/value - These findings broaden the scope of earlier user research, which tends to focus on the more static views of habitual information-seeking and -searching behavior, by applying theoretical frameworks for a richer understanding of the users' experiences.

0.006804733 = product of:
  0.027218932 = sum of:
    0.027218932 = product of:
      0.054437865 = sum of:
        0.054437865 = weight(_text_:model in 665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054437865 = score(doc=665,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.29738903 = fieldWeight in 665, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=665)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0064498456 = product of:
  0.025799382 = sum of:
    0.025799382 = product of:
      0.051598765 = sum of:
        0.051598765 = weight(_text_:22 in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051598765 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8.11.2008 19:22:53

0.0064498456 = product of:
  0.025799382 = sum of:
    0.025799382 = product of:
      0.051598765 = sum of:
        0.051598765 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051598765 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.004837384 = product of:
  0.019349536 = sum of:
    0.019349536 = product of:
      0.03869907 = sum of:
        0.03869907 = weight(_text_:22 in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03869907 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22