Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

0.05568437 = product of:
  0.08352655 = sum of:
    0.06382412 = weight(_text_:management in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06382412 = score(doc=501,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
    0.019702438 = product of:
      0.039404877 = sum of:
        0.039404877 = weight(_text_:system in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039404877 = score(doc=501,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Auburn University name authority control has evolved from card revision to online control management. Since fall 1984, obsolete entries in the frozen public catalog have not been revised. All efforts now concern the building of an interactive online data and authority file system. Statistical information on the number of headings changed during the NOTIS period is presented as evidence in favor of electronic management of bibliographic files. Statistics presented concerning authority entries changed manually during the AACR2/pre-NOTIS age balance the picture. The statistics support the hypothesis that performing authority work online is quicker and more efficient than the manual performance of equivalent tasks. Online subject authority is also discussed, as is Auburn's implementation of the Merged Headings Index to date.

0.048662614 = product of:
  0.07299392 = sum of:
    0.045130465 = weight(_text_:management in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045130465 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
    0.027863456 = product of:
      0.055726912 = sum of:
        0.055726912 = weight(_text_:system in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055726912 = score(doc=5187,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Without reform and adaptation to contemporary technology, existing paper libraries may become increasingly marginalized and eventually little more than book museums. Proposes a new method to organize access to paper resources by using relational database management systems technology to change libraries' existing data structures and concepts of organization of materials in order to create an open, shared, easy-to-use and cooperatively maintained system. Without substantial proactive change, users familiar with accessing and manipulating digital materials will become very intolerant of the anomalies and archaisms of libraries' card-based automated catalogues. Outlines the benefits of such a system and lists considerations which should be taken into account in its design

0.041990705 = product of:
  0.06298605 = sum of:
    0.045588657 = weight(_text_:management in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045588657 = score(doc=420,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.017397394 = product of:
      0.03479479 = sum of:
        0.03479479 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03479479 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.022333791 = product of:
  0.06700137 = sum of:
    0.06700137 = weight(_text_:management in 5430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06700137 = score(doc=5430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.38701317 = fieldWeight in 5430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5430)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

0.01861149 = product of:
  0.055834472 = sum of:
    0.055834472 = weight(_text_:management in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055834472 = score(doc=5390,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

0.01855722 = product of:
  0.05567166 = sum of:
    0.05567166 = product of:
      0.11134332 = sum of:
        0.11134332 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11134332 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.01855722 = product of:
  0.05567166 = sum of:
    0.05567166 = product of:
      0.11134332 = sum of:
        0.11134332 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11134332 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.01719256 = product of:
  0.051577676 = sum of:
    0.051577676 = weight(_text_:management in 603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051577676 = score(doc=603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=603)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Places present day UK culture and society in a postmodern context and considers their impact and cataloguing, concentrating specifically on the concepts of globalization and the death of tradition. Discusses how libraries can continue to provide high quality, structured access to their collections and the need for strategic management of this process. Emphasizes the importance of defining what the library want to achieve, setting objectives, and maintaining the capacity for flexible response to changing conditions, using as a case study the development and implementation of the British Library cataloguing strategy

0.01719256 = product of:
  0.051577676 = sum of:
    0.051577676 = weight(_text_:management in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051577676 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Indicates the benefits to be gained from a comprehensive programme of retrospective conversion of manual catalogue records into computerized form. Enumerates the scale of the task involved and the likely costs of the programme derived. Raises a range of issues arising from a relating to retrospective conversion and discusses the management implications. Lists a number of initiatives already undertaken and outlines the development of a possible national strategy

0.016784301 = product of:
  0.0503529 = sum of:
    0.0503529 = sum of:
      0.022517072 = weight(_text_:system in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022517072 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.02783583 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02783583 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.015043489 = product of:
  0.045130465 = sum of:
    0.045130465 = weight(_text_:management in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045130465 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Cataloguing education has been the focus of definition and ebate for over a century. Moving beyond cataloguing theory and the creation of records, to the management and process of producing catalogues, increases the complexity of demands placed on professionals and educators. Graduates need to understand their catalogues and integrated systems holistically. This requires a knowledge of each element, of standards governing the creation and maintenance of records, and of the relationship between the record and the catalogue and/or its constituent network. Moreover, the professional must know these things critically, and beyond mere acceptance of standards, so that the catalogue can effectively perform its mediating function between the collection and users

0.015043489 = product of:
  0.045130465 = sum of:
    0.045130465 = weight(_text_:management in 174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045130465 = score(doc=174,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 174, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=174)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.014686263 = product of:
  0.04405879 = sum of:
    0.04405879 = sum of:
      0.019702438 = weight(_text_:system in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019702438 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.1217929 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.02435635 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02435635 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."

0.013917915 = product of:
  0.041753743 = sum of:
    0.041753743 = product of:
      0.083507486 = sum of:
        0.083507486 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083507486 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.013917915 = product of:
  0.041753743 = sum of:
    0.041753743 = product of:
      0.083507486 = sum of:
        0.083507486 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083507486 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.013917915 = product of:
  0.041753743 = sum of:
    0.041753743 = product of:
      0.083507486 = sum of:
        0.083507486 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083507486 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.01289442 = product of:
  0.038683258 = sum of:
    0.038683258 = weight(_text_:management in 857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038683258 = score(doc=857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=857)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To examine whether placing URLs into library OPACs has been an effective way of enhancing the role of the catalogue for the contemporary library user. Design/methodology/approach - A brief review of the literature combined with an analysis of publicly available statistics for library use in the USA and the UK. Findings - That certain ways of placing URLs into the OPAC are loosely associated with a successful library environment, i.e. with constant or increasing levels of stock circulation and OPAC use, while other forms of hyper-linking OPAC records are loosely associated with declining levels of library use. Research limitations/implications - The loose association between different OPAC management practices and apparent statistical trends of library use could be investigated in greater depth by further subsequent research, but along the lines and methodology suggested herein. Practical implications - Firm suggestions on how to place and manage URLs in the online catalogue are made. Originality/value - This paper takes certain catalogue enhancement practices which are identified with the US library environment and investigates them in a UK, and specifically Scottish context, to shed light on the original US ideas behind these practices.

0.011598263 = product of:
  0.03479479 = sum of:
    0.03479479 = product of:
      0.06958958 = sum of:
        0.06958958 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06958958 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243

0.011598263 = product of:
  0.03479479 = sum of:
    0.03479479 = product of:
      0.06958958 = sum of:
        0.06958958 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06958958 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.011598263 = product of:
  0.03479479 = sum of:
    0.03479479 = product of:
      0.06958958 = sum of:
        0.06958958 = weight(_text_:22 in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06958958 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 4.2020 20:22:29