-
Farmer, L.S.J.: Cataloging children's materials : issues and solutions (2021)
0.03
0.03260874 = product of:
0.06521748 = sum of:
0.06521748 = product of:
0.13043496 = sum of:
0.13043496 = weight(_text_:light in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13043496 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Library catalogs remain challenging for children to use, especially because children have difficulty with multi-step processes, have less semantic and technical knowledge, and often search differently from adults. Child-friendly catalogs should have clear, simple protocols and visual guides that are standardized yet include flexible options for differentiated manipulation. Materials should be described accurately and in ways that connect meaningfully to children. More fundamentally, cataloging children's materials needs to be done in light of children as potential users and limitations of the integrated library management system itself. Getting children's feedback in the process can optimize the results.
-
Boruah, B.B.; Ravikumar, S.; Gayang, F.L.: Consistency, extent, and validation of the utilization of the MARC 21 bibliographic standard in the college libraries of Assam in India (2023)
0.03
0.03260874 = product of:
0.06521748 = sum of:
0.06521748 = product of:
0.13043496 = sum of:
0.13043496 = weight(_text_:light in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13043496 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper brings light to the existing practice of cataloging in the college libraries of Assam in terms of utilizing the MARC 21 standard and its structure, i.e., the tags, subfield codes, and indicators. Catalog records from six college libraries are collected and a survey is conducted to understand the local users' information requirements for the catalog. Places, where libraries have scope to improve and which divisions of tags could be more helpful for them in information retrieval, are identified and suggested. This study fulfilled the need for local-level assessment of the catalogs.
-
Dobreski, B.: Common usage as warrant in bibliographic description (2020)
0.02
0.023291955 = product of:
0.04658391 = sum of:
0.04658391 = product of:
0.09316782 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=5708,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.
-
Morris, V.: Automated language identification of bibliographic resources (2020)
0.01
0.013701421 = product of:
0.027402842 = sum of:
0.027402842 = product of:
0.054805685 = sum of:
0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054805685 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, 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=5749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 2. 3.2020 19:04:22
-
Das, S.; Paik, J.H.: Gender tagging of named entities using retrieval-assisted multi-context aggregation : an unsupervised approach (2023)
0.01
0.010276065 = product of:
0.02055213 = sum of:
0.02055213 = product of:
0.04110426 = sum of:
0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04110426 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, 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=941)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2023 12:00:14
-
Kim, J.(im); Kim, J.(enna): Effect of forename string on author name disambiguation (2020)
0.01
0.008563388 = product of:
0.017126776 = sum of:
0.017126776 = product of:
0.034253553 = sum of:
0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034253553 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5930, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5930)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 11. 7.2020 13:22:58
-
Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023)
0.01
0.008563388 = product of:
0.017126776 = sum of:
0.017126776 = product of:
0.034253553 = sum of:
0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034253553 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:40:36
