Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing Products: An Overview of Current Features and Functionality
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION Like cataloging in the 1970s and circulation in the 1980s, interlibrary loan has become a focus of product development by many library vendors. The development of new ILL software and systems has significantly expanded during the past five years. A number of vendors are implementing the international standard for interlibrary loan communication, the ISO ILL Protocol, by incorporating Protocol communication capabilities into their new, comprehensive ILL applications. Other vendors are offering products that support patron-initiated ordering from either a physical or virtual union catalog. New products to manage internal files and procedures of traditional, mediated ILL have also been introduced or upgraded significantly. Marketing of these products by some vendors would suggest that their product is the solution for all ILL needs. They are not. This publication is intended to help ILL managers and library administrators to understand the differences among 23 products and their functionality, designed to support ILL operations in all types and sizes libraries in the United States and Canada. Terminology Used in the Publication Interlibrary loan (ILL) and document delivery (DD) are encompassing terms that define the process used by a library (or library's patron) to obtain an item or surrogate of an item from another library or document supplier. ILL is used in this publication to describe both the requesting and supplying of books and other returnables, and of copies of journal articles and other nonreturnables. Resource sharing is used in this publication to characterize a circulation-based process that permits patrons to search physical or virtual union catalogs and place circulation holds on items held by libraries in the consortium. Mediated ILL characterizes the process handled by ILL staff. Unmediated borrowing indicates the patron has searched, found, and ordered the item. What's Included in Each Review Descriptions of each product are adapted from responses to a detailed questionnaire (Appendix 2) as well as general information gleaned from Web sites and personal product knowledge. Vendors that did not respond to the questionnaire were contacted to see if they would submit a response; several chose not to respond, and their lack of response should not be interpreted negatively. The Structure of Each Chapter Each chapter includes an overview, a section on borrowing functionality, and a section on lending functionality. To avoid implying any relative importance of any feature, the general section is arranged alphabetically. Subsections include: archiving records, creating and accessing records, customization, interface with external systems, patron-initiated requesting, pricing, reports and statistics, support of standards, system architecture, target audience, technical and support, and training. The borrowing section is also arranged alphabetically, including: authentication and authorization, communication with patrons, copyright compliance, fines and fees, mediated and unmediated processing, patron and lender records, and printing. The borrowing section ends with a review of the steps of the ILL process: creating patron requests; searching, editing, and sending; and renewals, cancellations, and overdues. The lending section is similarly arranged, beginning with: borrowers records, fees and invoices, mediated and unmediated processing, and printing. The steps of the lending process include: receiving and processing requests; shipping and returning material; status checks, overdues, recalls; and unfilled requests. Not All Products Are Meant To Serve the Same Function This publication includes products developed to meet a range of needs, library types, and library size. Just because a product is not designed to provide a particular feature does not make it less desirable than a product with that feature. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle