MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2113024705

Becoming an authority on authority control : An annotated bibliography of resources

2006· article· en· W2113024705 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert E. Wolverton

Notice bibliographique

RevueLibrary Resources and Technical Services · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Systems
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAuthority controlCatalogingVendorControl (management)World Wide WebComputer scienceProcess (computing)Consistency (knowledge bases)Public accessLibrary sciencePolitical scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Authority control has long been an important part of cataloging process. However, few studies have been conducted examining how librarians learn about it. Research conducted to date suggests that many librarians learn about authority control on job rather than in formal classes. To offer an introduction to authority control information for librarians, an annotated bibliography is provided. It includes monographs, articles and papers, electronic discussion groups, Web sites related to professional conferences, additional Web sites related to authority control, and training offered through Name Authority Cooperative Program and Subject Authority Cooperative Program. A summary of possible future trends in authority control is also provided. ********** Authority control, long an integral part of cataloging process, has been defined as the process of maintaining consistency in verbal form used to represent an access point in a catalog and further process of showing relationships among names, works, and subjects. (1) It helps provide structure and uniformity to information, which can make it more accessible and valuable to library user. As amount of information available to public continues to expand, effective use of authority control concepts can greatly assist library users by making information more accessible and help catalogers in formulating access points for bibliographic records they prepare for public access. The ongoing development of computer technology over past several decades has made authority control easier and more efficient to implement for many libraries, either as an in-house process or by using a vendor. With development and evolution of authority control and online public access catalogs (OPACs), library users can now be directed automatically from an earlier or alternative form of a name, title, series, or subject to authorized one. While this may appear to be a seamless process for library user, catalogers behind scenes must ensure that authority work is done properly so entire information retrieval process continues to be seen as seamless. Despite importance of authority control, few studies have been conducted examining how librarians learn about it. A 2002 study of how librarians learned about authority control and authority work was conducted by Mugridge and Furniss, using replies to a four-question survey that they posted on Autocat cataloging and authority control electronic discussion list. (2) The results revealed that of forty-nine survey respondents, majority learned about authority control and authority work on job rather than in library school. The authors further noted that, even when exposed to authority control concepts in library school, some respondents felt they received only a minimal amount of information and perceived a lack of hands-on, practical training in authority work. In their conclusions from survey, Mugridge and Furniss suggested that regional workshops or conferences should be offered as a way for librarians at local level to learn more about authority concepts and practices. They also recommended that library schools review their courses and consider offering courses dedicated to authority work or discussing authority work in detail in advanced cataloging courses. Employers were encouraged to invest in continuing education activities and to allow use of work time for further study. Mugridge and Furniss concluded by stating that librarians responsible for authority work need to keep themselves updated on developments in area through additional reading and education. To further ascertain how authority control is learned, Taylor conducted a survey of 114 people whom she identified as teaching in area of organization of information in schools of library and information science in United States and Canada. …

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,034
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,114

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0240,056
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,003
Communication savante0,0070,010
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0340,013

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,225
Écart entre enseignants0,215 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLibrary Resources and Technical ServicesMême sujetLibrary Science and Information SystemsTravaux en français237 207