A catalogue quality audit tool

Chapman, Ann; Massey, Owen

doi:10.29173/lirg128

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…-Manual Quality Evaluation. The majority of approaches (see Table 1) manually review a statistically significant sample of metadata instances against a predefined set of quality parameters, similar to sampling techniques used for quality assurance of library cataloguing [8]. Human evaluations are averaged and an estimation of metadata quality in the repository is obtained.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital repositories

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to recent developments in automatic metadata generation and interoperability between digital repositories, the production of metadata is now vastly surpassing manual quality control capabilities. Abandoning quality control altogether is problematic, because low quality metadata compromise the effectiveness of services that repositories provide to their users. To address this problem, we present a set of scalable quality metrics for metadata based on the Bruce & Hillman framework for metadata quality control. We perform three experiments to evaluate our metrics: 1) the degree of correlation between the metrics and manual quality reviews, 2) the discriminatory power between metadata sets and 3) the usefulness of the metrics as low quality filters. Through statistical analysis, we found that several metrics, especially Text Information Content, correlate well with human evaluation and that the average of all the metrics are roughly as effective as people to flag low quality instances. The implications of this finding are discussed. Finally, we propose possible applications of the metrics to improve tools for the administration of digital repositories.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital repositories

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Case study 1.3 An example of a project that reports on an audit of a service Chapman, A. and Massey, O. (2002) A Catalogue Quality Audit Tool, Library Management, 23 (6/7), 314-24.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are research, evaluation and audit?

Sen¹,

Grant²,

Spring³

Research, Evaluation and Audit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of a workable definition of research is an important one, as a common barrier for becoming involved in research is a lack of understanding or misunderstanding of what research is. Research is identified by French, Reynolds and Swain (2001) as the simple process of systematic enquiry and of finding out. Across the board, professional disciplines from industry, business, science and law to the arts and humanities, the definitions of research are essentially the same. For instance, in relation to business studies, Saunders et al. (2003) identify research as the undertaking of processes in a systematic way in order to find things out about business and management. Cameron and Price (2009, 4) define research as 'any systematic attempt at collecting and interpreting data and evidence in order to inform thinking, decisions and/or actions in relation to an issue of interest to an organization and/or its stakeholders'. Elsewhere, the UK Department of Health (2005) defines research as 'the attempt to derive generalisable new knowledge by addressing clearly defined questions with systematic and rigorous methods'.

show abstract

An Assessment of Google Books’ Metadata

James¹,

Weiss²

2012

Journal of Library Metadata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on a study of error rates found in the metadata records of texts scanned by the Google Books digitization project. A review of the author, title, publisher, and publication year metadata elements for 400 randomly selected Google Books records was undertaken. The results show 36% of sampled books in the digitization project contained metadata errors. This error rate is higher than one would expect to find in a typical library online catalog.

show abstract

A catalogue quality audit tool

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital repositories

Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital repositories

What are research, evaluation and audit?

An Assessment of Google Books’ Metadata

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About