开放存取与图书馆发展的关系

开放存取是适应社会发展的崭新事物,其涵义和发展有待进一步研究,开放存取资源有自身的发展规律,图书馆在未来发展中应把握开放存取的规律并借助开放存取运动促进其健康发展.     

电子图书对传统图书出版机构的影响

电子图书在近几年取得了很大的发展.传统图书出版机构一方面想加入其中,但另一方面又在自己的传统边界中固步自封.分析电子书近年的发展、与传统出版的合作以及存在的问题等.     

基于核心价值的图书馆行业制度化管理研究

本文在对图书馆核心价值探讨的基础上,从建立和完善体现核心价值的法律制度、能培养有核心竞争力的从业者的教育制度、以中国图书馆学会为中心的行业管理组织体制、图书馆职业资格证书制度以及图书馆评估机制这几方面,对图书馆基于核心价值的行业制度化管理提出了自己的看法.     

基于中介式文献传递的用户馆服务系统研制

以提高基于中介式文献传递的用户馆服务效率为目的,采用ASP技术构建网络化、个性化的文献传递系统。该系统针对本馆文献传递工作实际,实现用户端和管理端的自动化。用户端具有申请表单提交、表单结果查询与下载、用户密码修改3个功能;管理端用于文献传递馆员的事务处理,具有文献请求处理、账户信息管理、数据查询修改3大功能。应用结果表明,该系统能有效提高本馆原文传递工作效率。     

云计算与数字化图书馆技术发展

介绍云计算的7种使用模式与网格技术的异同以及云计算的发展现状,讨论云计算能够为数字化图书馆提供技术支撑,并研究所面临的问题和未来发展.     

如何利用在线资源进行日文编目

日文在图书馆编目语种中属于小语种.精通日语的人相对较少,因此需要花费不少的时间和精力.目前,著录字符、分类、索取号的准确性问题是影响日文图书编目质量的关键因素.针对这3类问题应采取如下措施:进入日本的图书馆网站,利用该站的图书目录数据提高著录字符的准确性;利用网上书店等网站,获得图书相关内容信息;利用翻译软件,更准确理解图书内容,准确分类;制作表单工具,提高索取号准确率.     

公共图书馆弱势群体服务实效及解决方案

现实中的公共图书馆弱势群体服务受到冷遇,知识援助社会影响力有限。其原因可以归结为:弱势群体图书馆服务与其需求存在差异;公共图书馆的社会排斥性问题;图书馆服务的有限性成为弱势群体利用图书馆的障碍;弱势群体自身对图书馆的认知有限。公共图书馆弱势群体服务必须大开免费之门,加强与政府的公共关系,引入志愿者服务机制,做好群体需求调研,通过延伸服务让尽可能多的群体成员成为知识援助的受益者。     

Analysis of the use of reference services in an academic health sciences library

In 1991, the Reference and Information Services staff of the Alfred Taubman Medical Library at the University of Michigan gathered data on the use of the reference desk, including the frequency and types of assistance requested by different user groups throughout the year. Recommendations based on the results of this study led to improved service as well as more efficient use of staff resources.     

中距离不同投篮点投篮命中率的差异分析

通过对两个不同水平的班级的投篮命中率的测试和检验。发现中距离不同投篮点的投篮命中率不存在显著性差异,投篮的“习惯位置”只是心理的产物,它并不意味着“非习惯位置”的投篮低命中率。但比赛中的“习惯位置”有待于进一步探讨。     

Controlling the field of academic economics in Hungary, 1953–1976

Conclusions On the basis of these findings, I suggest that the structure and organisation of the field of Hungarian economics under state socialism should be described as a case of partitioned bureaucracy.⁹ The compromise between research economists and the political elite in the New Course era between 1953 and 1955¹⁰ survived the post-1956 reaction in so far as political economy, with its predominantly legitimatory and ideological functions, remained partitioned from the other sectors in the field through the remainder of the state-socialist period. This secured considerable protection both for Marxist-Leninist political economy—which faced the destabilising effects of exposure to the findings of serious empirical research—and for the other sectors, which were professionally oriented and earnestly interested in the pursuit of unbiased empirical research, free from stifling agitprop interference. Our data concerning the reputational control of the field reflects only one, although very important, aspect of this partitioning. Another and much plainer aspect is that, from the early 1960s, the Agitation and Propaganda Department of the Central Committee no longer exercised control over the field, except in the political economy sector.The proposition about the mechanism paradigm should not be taken seriously as a statement of a Kuhnian type of intellectual organisation of Hungarian economics, with reform economics at its hard theoretical core. But it should certainly be taken seriously as a reflection of the sociopolitical structure which emerged and developed from the mid-1950s onwards. Neither the politicians nor the economists saw as necessary or even contemplated the integration of Hungarian economic research with Western mainstream economic thought. In exchange for the professional expertise and socio-economic intelligence necessary for the exercise of power, Hungary's state-socialist political class offered their economists relative autonomy and freedom from interference. The price the economists had to pay was partly to refrain from openly and systematically challenging the beliefs perpetuated by the political economy of socialism, and partly to accept in their research the paramountcy of policy orientation. But this burden they assumed willingly since it made them the only group within Hungary's academic intelligentsia—indeed, the only group in Hungarian society outside the political class—with the privilege of being coopted to the institutions with power over some restricted domains of policymaking. After 1989, especially under the conservative Antall government, this proved less than advantageous.¹¹ Although the benevolence of many critics is open to question, it could greatly benefit the field if the economists' expulsion from contemporary politics went hand in hand with provision of the material, intellectual and institutional conditions for a new approach where a fundamentally scientific orientation is paramount.