Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02202132 = product of:
  0.066063955 = sum of:
    0.066063955 = sum of:
      0.047277123 = weight(_text_:project in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047277123 = score(doc=1184,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04622078 = queryNorm
          0.24232619 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.01878683 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01878683 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04622078 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.008349704 = product of:
  0.025049109 = sum of:
    0.025049109 = product of:
      0.050098218 = sum of:
        0.050098218 = weight(_text_:22 in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050098218 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.11.2008 19:22:53

0.008349704 = product of:
  0.025049109 = sum of:
    0.025049109 = product of:
      0.050098218 = sum of:
        0.050098218 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050098218 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.0075820712 = product of:
  0.022746213 = sum of:
    0.022746213 = product of:
      0.045492426 = sum of:
        0.045492426 = weight(_text_:project in 3352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045492426 = score(doc=3352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19509704 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 3352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This investigation of new approaches to improving collaboration, user/librarian experiences, and sustainability for virtual reference services (VRS) reports findings from a grant project titled "Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability between Virtual Reference and Social Q&A Sites" (Radford, Connaway, & Shah, 2011-2014). In-depth telephone interviews with 50 VRS librarians included questions on collaboration, referral practices, and attitudes toward Social Question and Answer (SQA) services using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954). The Community of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998; Davies, 2005) framework was found to be a useful conceptualization for understanding VRS professionals' approaches to their work. Findings indicate that participants usually refer questions from outside of their area of expertise to other librarians, but occasionally refer them to nonlibrarian experts. These referrals are made possible because participants believe that other VRS librarians are qualified and willing collaborators. Barriers to collaboration include not knowing appropriate librarians/experts for referral, inability to verify credentials, and perceived unwillingness to collaborate. Facilitators to collaboration include knowledge of appropriate collaborators who are qualified and willingness to refer. Answers from SQA services were perceived as less objective and authoritative, but participants were open to collaborating with nonlibrarian experts with confirmation of professional expertise or extensive knowledge.

0.0062622773 = product of:
  0.01878683 = sum of:
    0.01878683 = product of:
      0.03757366 = sum of:
        0.03757366 = weight(_text_:22 in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03757366 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04622078 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22