Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028620359 = product of:
  0.057240717 = sum of:
    0.057240717 = product of:
      0.114481434 = sum of:
        0.114481434 = weight(_text_:classification in 5810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114481434 = score(doc=5810,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.6895092 = fieldWeight in 5810, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A major library classification scheme has long been standard classification framework for information sources in traditional library environment, and text classification (TC) becomes a popular and attractive tool of organizing digital information. This paper gives an overview of previous projects and studies on TC using major library classification schemes, and summarizes a discussion of TC research challenges.

0.020447372 = product of:
  0.040894743 = sum of:
    0.040894743 = product of:
      0.081789486 = sum of:
        0.081789486 = weight(_text_:classification in 6101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081789486 = score(doc=6101,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 6101, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study has proposed unification of three major schemes DDC, UDC and CC and developed uniform table for Form Divisions (Common Isolates), which can be used by any of the schemes of library classification or by a uniform classification scheme devised for digital environment. Paper suggests new postulation for the arrangement of geographical divisions. The paper also suggests for further research to prepare uniform classification code, which can be applied in digital environment. Concludes that IFLA may undertake a uniform classification code projects and its application in electronic environment.

0.017707944 = product of:
  0.035415888 = sum of:
    0.035415888 = product of:
      0.070831776 = sum of:
        0.070831776 = weight(_text_:classification in 6102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070831776 = score(doc=6102,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 6102, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Faceted classification is believed to be suitable for organizing digital information resources. Based on a faceted classification model suggested for Web resources (Zins, 2002), the current study analyzed popular Web directories from different Asian countries/areas and examined cultural differences reflected in their classification systems. Three popular Web directories from four countries/regions (China, Hong Kong, Korea, and Thailand) were selected and their classifications were analyzed and compared: a local Yahoo and two home-grown Web directories from each country/region. Based on the findings, the study suggests a model that might be more suitable to Asian culture.

0.011684213 = product of:
  0.023368426 = sum of:
    0.023368426 = product of:
      0.04673685 = sum of:
        0.04673685 = weight(_text_:classification in 5546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04673685 = score(doc=5546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 5546, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Suggest reasons why there is no operational OPAC station yet in Iceland. Obstacles include the lack of compatability among computer systems adopted by the major libraries, the differing classification schemes used by them and the lack of a controlled indexing vocabulary or thesaurus for subject analysis in the Icelandic language. The Rejkjavik Municipal Library and the National Hospital Library, both users of the DOBIS/LIBIS system, will be the first users of a potential network of OPACs.

0.0058421064 = product of:
  0.011684213 = sum of:
    0.011684213 = product of:
      0.023368426 = sum of:
        0.023368426 = weight(_text_:classification in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023368426 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.

0.0052976324 = product of:
  0.010595265 = sum of:
    0.010595265 = product of:
      0.02119053 = sum of:
        0.02119053 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02119053 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, 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=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.