1,720,968 research outputs found
GeoDatabase (.gdb) Data Curation Primer
No full textThis work was created as part of the Data Curation Network “Specialized Data Curation” Workshop #1 co-located with the Digital Library Federation (DLF) Forum 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 17-18, 2018.The geodatabase is a container for geospatial datasets that can also provide relational functionality between the files. Although the term geodatabase can be used more widely, this primer describes the ArcGIS geodatabase designed by Esri.Institute of Museum and Library Services RE-85-18-0040-18.Battista, Andrew; Brittnacher, Tom; Garrett, Zenobie; Moore, Jennifer; Pirmann, Carrie. (2019). GeoDatabase (.gdb) Data Curation Primer. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/202823
Tags in the Catalogue: Insights From a Usability Study of LibraryThing for Libraries
Full text linkItem reinstated by Sarah Shreeves ([email protected]) on 2014-09-19T10:00:44Z
Item was in collections:
Library Trends 61 (1) Summer 2012: Next-Generation Discovery and Access in Library Catalogs (Restricted) (ID: 892)
No. of bitstreams: 1
61.1.pirmann.pdf: 211192 bytes, checksum: afb6a1fb7aa8c292d1580ed971ed9612 (MD5)Embargoed Restriction Lifted for Item 34879 on 2014-09-19T10:00:44Z.published or submitted for publicationLibrary of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the standard subject
language used in library catalogues, are often criticized for their lack
of currency, biased language, and atypical syndetic structure. Conversely,
folksonomies (or tags), which rely on the natural language of
their users, offer a flexibility often lacking in controlled vocabularies
and may offer a means of augmenting more rigid controlled vocabularies
such as LCSH. Content analysis studies have demonstrated the
potential for folksonomies to be used as a means of enhancing subject
access to materials, and libraries are beginning to integrate tagging
systems into their catalogues. This study examines the utility of tags
as a means of enhancing subject access to materials in library online
public access catalogues (OPACs) through usability testing with the
LibraryThing for Libraries catalogue enhancements. Findings indicate
that while they cannot replace LCSH, tags do show promise for
aiding information seeking in OPACs. In the context of information
systems design, the study revealed that while folksonomies have the
potential to enhance subject access to materials, that potential is
severely limited by the current inability of catalogue interfaces to
support tag-based searches alongside standard catalogue searches.Submitted by Jacob Nash ([email protected]) on 2012-09-19T21:38:45Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
61.1.pirmann.pdf: 211192 bytes, checksum: afb6a1fb7aa8c292d1580ed971ed9612 (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2012-09-19T21:38:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
61.1.pirmann.pdf: 211192 bytes, checksum: afb6a1fb7aa8c292d1580ed971ed9612 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2012Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:11:05-05:00
Original Data
Group with Access full embargo (none)
Release Date: 2014-09-19 16:36:41 UTC
Reason: Agreement with publisherItem withdrawn by Jacob Nash ([email protected]) on 2012-09-19T21:38:46Z
Item was in collections:
Library Trends 61 (1) Summer 2012: Next-Generation Discovery and Access in Library Catalogs (Restricted) (ID: 892)
No. of bitstreams: 1
61.1.pirmann.pdf: 211192 bytes, checksum: afb6a1fb7aa8c292d1580ed971ed9612 (MD5)Item marked as completely restricted (or under embargo) by Jacob Nash ([email protected]) on 2012-09-19T21:38:46Z
Item is restricted until 2014-09-19T21:36:41
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Folktales & Folksonomies: Investigating the Utility of Tags as a Means of Description for Folktales
No full textSubmitted by Heekyung Choi ([email protected]) on 2010-03-01T16:39:01Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
folktales.pdf: 52657 bytes, checksum: a549a2c730cdfb33c0c561d07948ee35 (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2010-03-01T16:39:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
folktales.pdf: 52657 bytes, checksum: a549a2c730cdfb33c0c561d07948ee35 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2010-02-0
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Enhancing Subject Access to Materials in Library OPACs: Are Folksonomies the Answer?
No full textMade available in DSpace on 2010-04-01T21:42:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
iSchools_2009_Conference_abstract.pdf: 81815 bytes, checksum: 00cb6a8b56300f0fa57b8843fd56e7df (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2009-02-08This research will examine a given set of books and compare their LibraryThing
folksonomic tags with their assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings. In particular, I am
looking for commonalities and differences in the ways in which these subject languages describe
the materials to which they are applied. Can folksonomies be used to enhance subject access to
materials in library catalogs? What does user tagging tell us about the way that people think
about the subjects of a book? In an information environment where students are so attuned to
keyword and Google-style searching, does the application of folksonomic tags increase the
findability of library materials?Submitted by Heekyung Choi ([email protected]) on 2010-04-01T21:42:39Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
iSchools_2009_Conference_abstract.pdf: 81815 bytes, checksum: 00cb6a8b56300f0fa57b8843fd56e7df (MD5
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Using Tags to Improve Findability in Library OPACs: A Usability Study of LibraryThing for Libraries
No full textLibrary of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), one of the standard descriptive languages used in library catalogs, are often criticized for their lack of currency, biased language, and atypical syndetic structure. Conversely, folksonomies, which rely on the natural language of their users, offer a flexibility often lacking in controlled vocabularies and as such may offer an alternative to or a means of augmenting more rigid controlled vocabularies such as LCSH. Content analysis studies have already demonstrated the potential for folksonomies to be used as a means of enhancing subject access to materials. Despite a sizable number of libraries now using the LibraryThing for Libraries catalog enhancements, and the development by some libraries of their own tagging systems (e.g., PennTags, MTagger), little research has been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of folksonomies as a means of enhancing item discovery in library catalogs. This project examines the utility of folksonomies as a means of enhancing subject access to materials in library OPACs through usability testing with the LibraryThing for Libraries catalog enhancements. Initial findings from the usability test indicate that while they cannot replace LCSH, folksonomies do show promise for aiding information seeking in OPACs. Overall, participants indicated that folksonomies could be useful for surveying broad subject areas or for exploring materials in a topic area with which the user is not familiar, while subject headings remained the preferred access mechanism for information seeking that is tied to more focused research. In the context of information systems design, the study revealed that while folksonomies have the potential to enhance subject access to materials, that potential is severely limited by the current inability of catalog interfaces to support tag-based searches alongside standard catalog searches.not peer reviewedSubmitted by Carrie Pirmann ([email protected]) on 2011-05-04T23:59:43Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
PirmannCASpaperfinal.pdf: 876957 bytes, checksum: a88eca2a86213eff0354afcb65b932c1 (MD5)Approved for entry into archive by Sarah Shreeves([email protected]) on 2011-05-05T00:53:55Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
PirmannCASpaperfinal.pdf: 876957 bytes, checksum: a88eca2a86213eff0354afcb65b932c1 (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-05T00:53:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
PirmannCASpaperfinal.pdf: 876957 bytes, checksum: a88eca2a86213eff0354afcb65b932c1 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2011-05-04unpublishe
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
