Search (3667 results, page 1 of 184)

0.17232142 = product of:
  0.34464285 = sum of:
    0.34464285 = sum of:
      0.30341333 = weight(_text_:4,000 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.30341333 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4818038 = queryWeight, product of:
            9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05071799 = queryNorm
          0.6297446 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.041229524 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041229524 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17760576 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05071799 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 770, 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=770)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In response to the Association of Research Libraries' Special Collections Task Force's interest in "hidden" special collection materials, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Conservation Unit undertook a conservation needs survey of the Rare Book and Special Collections Library's backlog of uncataloged rare book materials. The survey evaluated the binding structure; physical, biological, and chemical damage; and unique features of more than 4,000 randomly sampled pieces from the collection. The information gathered would aid in planning for the integration of immediate preservation actions with future cataloging projects and to better direct future conservation efforts. This paper details the development of the survey, interprets the results, and suggests methodologies for assessing other rare collections as well as approaches to integrating the identified immediate preservation needs with cataloging and processing projects.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.14353412 = sum of:
  0.122919366 = product of:
    0.36875808 = sum of:
      0.36875808 = weight(_text_:2200 in 1711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.36875808 = score(doc=1711,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.44664878 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05071799 = queryNorm
          0.8256109 = fieldWeight in 1711, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1711)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020614762 = product of:
    0.041229524 = sum of:
      0.041229524 = weight(_text_:22 in 1711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041229524 = score(doc=1711,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17760576 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05071799 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1711, 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=1711)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

NC 2200 (BVB)

Date

21. 3.2008 12:22:03

RVK

NC 2200 (BVB)

0.10116838 = sum of:
  0.08055362 = product of:
    0.24166085 = sum of:
      0.24166085 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.24166085 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4299877 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05071799 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020614762 = product of:
    0.041229524 = sum of:
      0.041229524 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041229524 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17760576 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05071799 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.084306985 = sum of:
  0.06712802 = product of:
    0.20138404 = sum of:
      0.20138404 = weight(_text_:3a in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20138404 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4299877 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05071799 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 3577, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3577)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.01717897 = product of:
    0.03435794 = sum of:
      0.03435794 = weight(_text_:22 in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03435794 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17760576 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05071799 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Agrarwissenschaften 1981. - 3. Allgemeine Geographie 2.1972. - 3a. Allgemeine Naturwissenschaften 1.1973. - 4. Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 2.1971. - 6. Allgemeines. 5.1983. - 7. Anglistik 3.1976. - 8. Astronomie, Geodäsie 4.1977. - 12. bio Biologie, bcp Biochemie-Biophysik, bot Botanik, zoo Zoologie 1981. - 13. Bremensien 3.1983. - 13a. Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 3.1975. - 14. Chemie 4.1977. - 14a. Elektrotechnik 1974. - 15 Ethnologie 2.1976. - 16,1. Geowissenschaften. Sachteil 3.1977. - 16,2. Geowissenschaften. Regionaler Teil 3.1977. - 17. Germanistik 6.1984. - 17a,1. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hil. - 17a,2. Geschichte. Teilsystematik his Neuere Geschichte. - 17a,3. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hit Neueste Geschichte. - 18. Humanbiologie 2.1983. - 19. Ingenieurwissenschaften 1974. - 20. siehe 14a. - 21. klassische Philologie 3.1977. - 22. Klinische Medizin 1975. - 23. Kunstgeschichte 2.1971. - 24. Kybernetik. 2.1975. - 25. Mathematik 3.1974. - 26. Medizin 1976. - 26a. Militärwissenschaft 1985. - 27. Musikwissenschaft 1978. - 27a. Noten 2.1974. - 28. Ozeanographie 3.1977. -29. Pädagogik 8.1985. - 30. Philosphie 3.1974. - 31. Physik 3.1974. - 33. Politik, Politische Wissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Soziologie. Länderschlüssel. Register 1981. - 34. Psychologie 2.1972. - 35. Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1985. - 36. Rechtswissenschaften 1986. - 37. Regionale Geograpgie 3.1975. - 37a. Religionswissenschaft 1970. - 38. Romanistik 3.1976. - 39. Skandinavistik 4.1985. - 40. Slavistik 1977. - 40a. Sonstige Sprachen und Literaturen 1973. - 43. Sport 4.1983. - 44. Theaterwissenschaft 1985. - 45. Theologie 2.1976. - 45a. Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologie 1970. - 47. Volkskunde 1976. - 47a. Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1971 // Schlüssel: 1. Länderschlüssel 1971. - 2. Formenschlüssel (Kurzform) 1974. - 3. Personenschlüssel Literatur 5. Fassung 1968

0.08055362 = product of:
  0.16110724 = sum of:
    0.16110724 = product of:
      0.4833217 = sum of:
        0.4833217 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4833217 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4299877 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.07585333 = product of:
  0.15170667 = sum of:
    0.15170667 = product of:
      0.30341333 = sum of:
        0.30341333 = weight(_text_:4,000 in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30341333 = score(doc=4472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4818038 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.6297446 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Board which sought to investigate links between Web search strategies and retrieval effectiveness. A total of 68 students, enrolled on masters programmes in librarianship, information management and information systems, searched for two topics using the AltaVista search engine. Logs of the resultant 341 queries, along with relevance judgements for over 4,000 retrieved items, were analysed using factor analysis and regression. The differing but complementary types and strengths of evidence produced by these two forms of analysis are discussed and presented. Retrieval effectiveness was associated positively with best-match searching and negatively with Boolean searching. The implications of these findings for Web searching are discussed.

0.07585333 = product of:
  0.15170667 = sum of:
    0.15170667 = product of:
      0.30341333 = sum of:
        0.30341333 = weight(_text_:4,000 in 5425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30341333 = score(doc=5425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4818038 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.6297446 = fieldWeight in 5425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes the efforts at the Daniel Cosio Villegas Library of Colegio de Mexico (Mexico) to create a Spanish language authority file on its ALEPH online system. To date, the authorities team, composed of about ten librarians, have created over 10,000 name authorities, and close to 4,000 subject authorities in MARC format, closely following the structure of the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) records. For the subject authority file, it was decided to establish three levels of description, all of which include the LCSH English term. In order to establish the term in Spanish, seven official sources have been used, with Bilindex (1984) having the highest usage, closely followed by the subject headings list developed by Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) of Spain. As the first Mexican NACO/SACO participants, librarians at the Colegio de Mexico Library also received training by personnel from the Library of Congress in the creation and validation of subject headings.

0.07585333 = product of:
  0.15170667 = sum of:
    0.15170667 = product of:
      0.30341333 = sum of:
        0.30341333 = weight(_text_:4,000 in 207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30341333 = score(doc=207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4818038 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.6297446 = fieldWeight in 207, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Due to e-mail's ubiquitous nature, millions of users are intimate with the technology; however, most users are only familiar with managing their own e-mail, which is an inherently different task from exploring an e-mail archive. Historians and social scientists believe that e-mail archives are important artifacts for understanding the individuals and communities they represent. To understand the conversations evidenced in an archive, context is needed. In this article, we present a new way to gain this necessary context: analyzing the temporal rhythms of social relationships. We provide methods for constructing meaningful rhythms from the e-mail headers by identifying relationships and interpreting their attributes. With these visualization techniques, e-mail archive explorers can uncover insights that may have been otherwise hidden in the archive. We apply our methods to an individual's 15-year e-mail archive, which consists of about 45,000 messages and over 4,000 relationships.

0.07585333 = product of:
  0.15170667 = sum of:
    0.15170667 = product of:
      0.30341333 = sum of:
        0.30341333 = weight(_text_:4,000 in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30341333 = score(doc=4441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4818038 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.6297446 = fieldWeight in 4441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article employs citation analysis on a micro level-the level of the cited document; in this case, Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (1968/2007). The study shows how this frequently cited publication-more than 4,000 citations in Web of Science-has been received. The growth of citations and interdisciplinary citing is studied, and a novel approach-page citation analysis-is applied to study how different parts of Illuminations have been cited. The article demonstrates how bibliometric methods can be used together with qualitative accounts to map the impact and dissemination of a particular publication. Furthermore, it shows how bibliometric methods can be utilized to study intellectual structures in the humanities, and highlights the influence of the humanities on the social sciences and sciences.

0.071702965 = product of:
  0.14340593 = sum of:
    0.14340593 = product of:
      0.43021777 = sum of:
        0.43021777 = weight(_text_:2200 in 2199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.43021777 = score(doc=2199,freq=1.0), product of:
            0.44664878 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.96321267 = fieldWeight in 2199, product of:
              1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
                1.0 = termFreq=1.0
              8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2199)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

2200

0.071702965 = product of:
  0.14340593 = sum of:
    0.14340593 = product of:
      0.43021777 = sum of:
        0.43021777 = weight(_text_:2200 in 3734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.43021777 = score(doc=3734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.44664878 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.96321267 = fieldWeight in 3734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3734)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

MR 2200

RVK

MR 2200

0.068025246 = product of:
  0.13605049 = sum of:
    0.13605049 = product of:
      0.27210099 = sum of:
        0.27210099 = weight(_text_:22 in 219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27210099 = score(doc=219,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17760576 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 219, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.068025246 = product of:
  0.13605049 = sum of:
    0.13605049 = product of:
      0.27210099 = sum of:
        0.27210099 = weight(_text_:22 in 1386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27210099 = score(doc=1386,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17760576 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 1386, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=1386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.068025246 = product of:
  0.13605049 = sum of:
    0.13605049 = product of:
      0.27210099 = sum of:
        0.27210099 = weight(_text_:22 in 2102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27210099 = score(doc=2102,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17760576 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 2102, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=2102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.06712802 = product of:
  0.13425604 = sum of:
    0.13425604 = product of:
      0.40276808 = sum of:
        0.40276808 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40276808 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4299877 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.06321111 = product of:
  0.12642223 = sum of:
    0.12642223 = product of:
      0.25284445 = sum of:
        0.25284445 = weight(_text_:4,000 in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25284445 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4818038 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.5247872 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Automatic document categorization is an important research problem in Information Science and Natural Language Processing. Many applications, including, Word Sense Disambiguation and Information Retrieval in large collections, can benefit from such categorization. This paper focuses on automatic categorization of documents from the biomedical literature into broad discipline-based categories. Two different systems are described and contrasted: CISMeF, which uses rules based on human indexing of the documents by the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) controlled vocabulary in order to assign metaterms (MTs), and Journal Descriptor Indexing (JDI), based on human categorization of about 4,000 journals and statistical associations between journal descriptors (JDs) and textwords in the documents. We evaluate and compare the performance of these systems against a gold standard of humanly assigned categories for 100 MEDLINE documents, using six measures selected from trec_eval. The results show that for five of the measures performance is comparable, and for one measure JDI is superior. We conclude that these results favor JDI, given the significantly greater intellectual overhead involved in human indexing and maintaining a rule base for mapping MeSH terms to MTs. We also note a JDI method that associates JDs with MeSH indexing rather than textwords, and it may be worthwhile to investigate whether this JDI method (statistical) and CISMeF (rule-based) might be combined and then evaluated showing they are complementary to one another.

0.06321111 = product of:
  0.12642223 = sum of:
    0.12642223 = product of:
      0.25284445 = sum of:
        0.25284445 = weight(_text_:4,000 in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25284445 = score(doc=528,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4818038 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.5247872 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This large-scale international study measures the attitudes of more than 4,000 researchers toward peer review. In 2009, 40,000 authors of research papers from across the globe were invited to complete an online survey. Researchers were asked to rate a number of general statements about peer review, and then a subset of respondents, who had themselves peer reviewed, rated a series of statements concerning their experience of peer review. The study found that the peer review process is highly regarded by the vast majority of researchers and considered by most to be essential to the communication of scholarly research. Nine out of 10 authors believe that peer review improved the last paper they published. Double-blind peer review is considered the most effective form of peer review. Nearly three quarters of researchers think that technological advances are making peer review more effective. Most researchers believe that although peer review should identify fraud, it is very difficult for it to do so. Reviewers are committed to conducting peer review in the future and believe that simple practical steps, such as training new reviewers would further improve peer review.

0.06321111 = product of:
  0.12642223 = sum of:
    0.12642223 = product of:
      0.25284445 = sum of:
        0.25284445 = weight(_text_:4,000 in 5444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25284445 = score(doc=5444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4818038 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.5247872 = fieldWeight in 5444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.499662 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Columbia University Libraries recently embarked on a multi-phase project to migrate nearly 4,000 records describing over 70,000 linear feet of archival material from disparate sources and formats into ArchivesSpace. This paper discusses tools and methods brought to bear in Phase 2 of this project, which required us to look closely at how to integrate a large number of legacy finding aids into the new system and merge descriptive data that had diverged in myriad ways. Using Python, XSLT, and a widely available if underappreciated resource-the Google Sheets API-archival and technical library staff devised ways to efficiently report data from different sources, and present it in an accessible, user-friendly way,. Responses were then fed back into automated data remediation processes to keep the migration project on track and minimize manual intervention. The scripts and processes developed proved very effective, and moreover, show promise well beyond the ArchivesSpace migration. This paper describes the Python/XSLT/Sheets API processes developed and how they opened a path to move beyond CSV-based reporting with flexible, ad-hoc data interfaces easily adaptable to meet a variety of purposes.

0.061459683 = product of:
  0.122919366 = sum of:
    0.122919366 = product of:
      0.36875808 = sum of:
        0.36875808 = weight(_text_:2200 in 574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.36875808 = score(doc=574,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.44664878 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.8256109 = fieldWeight in 574, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.806516 = idf(docFreq=17, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=574)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

CM 2200

RVK

CM 2200

0.05370241 = product of:
  0.10740482 = sum of:
    0.10740482 = product of:
      0.32221445 = sum of:
        0.32221445 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32221445 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4299877 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05071799 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch: https://studylibde.com/doc/13053640/richard-schrodt. Vgl. auch: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2FGermanistik%2Fschrodt%2Fvorlesung%2Fwissenschaftssprache.doc&usg=AOvVaw1lDLDR6NFf1W0-oC9mEUJf.