Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Connaway, L.S."
  1. O'Neill, E.T.; Connaway, L.S.; Dickey, T.J.: Estimating the audience level for library resources (2008) 0.05 
    0.047445606 = product of:
  0.09489121 = sum of:
    0.06924136 = weight(_text_:reference in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06924136 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 6654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6654)
    0.025649851 = product of:
      0.051299702 = sum of:
        0.051299702 = weight(_text_:22 in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051299702 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    WorldCat, OCLC's bibliographic database, identifies books and the libraries that hold them. The holdings provide detailed information about the type and number of libraries that have acquired the material. Using this information, it is possible to infer the type of audience for which the material is intended. A quantitative measure, the audience level, is derived from the types of libraries that have selected the resource. The audience level can be used to refine discovery, analyze collections, advise readers, and enhance reference services.
    Date
    8.11.2008 19:22:53
  2. Radford, M.L.; Connaway, L.S.; Mikitish, S.; Alpert, M.; Shah, C.; Cooke, N.A.: Shared values, new vision : collaboration and communities of practice in virtual reference and SQA (2017) 0.02 
    0.018738994 = product of:
  0.07495598 = sum of:
    0.07495598 = weight(_text_:reference in 3352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07495598 = score(doc=3352,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.3892746 = fieldWeight in 3352, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3352)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  3. Lavoie, B.; Connaway, L.S.; Dempsey, L.: Anatomy of aggregate collections : the example of Google print for libraries (2005) 0.02 
    0.016077057 = product of:
  0.064308226 = sum of:
    0.064308226 = sum of:
      0.045070842 = weight(_text_:file in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045070842 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047329273 = queryNorm
          0.17766261 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.019237388 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019237388 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047329273 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.
    Date
    26.12.2011 14:08:22
  4. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.01 
    0.006412463 = product of:
  0.025649851 = sum of:
    0.025649851 = product of:
      0.051299702 = sum of:
        0.051299702 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051299702 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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
  5. Lavoie, B.F.; Connaway, L.S.; O'Neill, E.T.: Mapping WorldCat's digital landscape (2007) 0.00 
    0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = 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

Authors

Years

Types

Themes