MARC records were identified, isolated from the other search results, then analyzed and individually coded. Coding identified where search terms appeared in a record, determined whether search terms were present in full or in part within those fields, and ascertained what prominent categories of fields were missing from records. Analysis of results ultimately showed that including notes and summaries into catalog records is important for content retrieval, while subject headings were not as impactful for access, but may be valuable to a subset of users who take the additional step of viewing the complete records

Arnljots, Anna-Maria

Daybell, Paul

Meyer, Kurt

Payant, Andrea

Skeen, Becky

Woolcott, Liz

English

DigitalCommons@USU

Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Library Faculty & Staff Presentations Libraries 5-21-2021 MARC-y MARC and the Coding Bunch Anna-Maria Arnljots Utah State University Paul Daybell Utah State University Kurt Meyer Utah State University Andrea Payant Utah State University Becky Skeen Utah State University Liz Woolcott Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/lib_present  Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Arnljots, A., Daybell, P., Meyer, K., Payant, A., Skeen, B., Woolcott, L. (2021). MARC-y MARC and the Coding Bunch. Presented at the Utah Library Association (ULA) Conference, May 21, 2021, Online. This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Library Faculty & Staff Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@usu.edu. MARC-y MARC and the Coding BunchAnna-Maria ArnljotsMetadata Assistantanna-maria.arnljots@usu.eduPaul DaybellArchival Cataloging Librarianpaul.daybell@usu.eduKurt MeyerGovernment Information and E-Resource Catalogerkurt.meyer@usu.eduAndrea PayantMetadata Librarianandrea.payant@usu.eduBecky SkeenSpecial Collection Cataloging Librarianbecky.skeen@usu.eduLiz WoolcottCataloging and Metadata Services Unit Headliz.woolcott@usu.eduUtah Library Association Annual Conference May 21, 20212Background• Multi-year research into user search behavior for all metadata standards employed by the unit§ First phase: MARC§ Next phases: EAD, Dublin Core• Project started just as the library moved everyone to work from home• Whole unit was able to participate in the coding projectProblem StatementWhat is the correlation between user search terms, the placement of MARC records in search results lists, and the performance of individual MARC fields in a search process?Research Questions• What is the frequency and placement of MARC records in search results list?• Where are Search terms located in MARC Records?Methodology• Focused on the Discovery Layer (Encore) because it was the primary search portal used by patrons• Pulled list of all URLs accessed on three days• Put into Airtable and codedWeb Log Analysis• Filtered for URLs that lead to search results pages• Fed URLs into Octoparse, a web-scrapping tool• Scrapped the list of search results, URLs, pagination, and results #• Numbered the results and put into Airtable, linked to originating URLWeb Scraping• Search Results List and URLs§ Extracted bib #§ Created formula to link to MARC view of bib§ Unit members pulled up Bib record and copy/pasted it into Airtable§ Assigned codes for :o Creator of recordo Material typeo MARC fields where term was foundo Fields that were not present§ Automated formula examined wordcount of recordAirtable• Web Log URLs§ Coded for basic search features:o Page Typeso Advanced Search fields usedo Facets usedo Page Number§ Coded the queries (search terms) for:o Search term constructiono Search categories (known item, topical)o User Patho Known Item TitlesAirtable (continued)• Known Items pulled out specifically and coded (most for a separate project looking at the discovery layer)§ Format/Genre§ Availability§ Physical or Electronic§ Location§ Steps to access§ Listed by§ Final Content Provider§ Checkouts§ Discoverability in Google Scholaro Steps to AccessAirtable (continued)ResultsResearch Question #1What is the frequency and placement of MARC records in search results lists?Analysis 1.1: How frequently are MARC records showing up in search results?Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 CombinedMARC-based catalog records 5264 3299 4749 13312Records from other platforms 20326 17560 16811 54697Total Records 25603 20859 21560 68022Percent MARC records 20.56% 15.82% 22.03% 19.57%Analysis 1.2: Is there a difference between locally created records and vendor supplied records in the frequency of listing in search results?Record Creator # Records in results list% Total records in results list# Records accessed% Total records accessedVendor 7,727 58.05% 163 39.00%Cataloging and Metadata Services 5,066 38.06% 239 57.18%Distance Campus Libraries 410 3.08% 5 1.20%Record unavailable at time of coding 52 0.39% 2 0.48%Patron Services, Library Media Collections, or Resource Sharing and Document Delivery 33 0.25% 8 1.91%Acquisitions 16 0.12% 0 0.00%Unknown 5 0.04% 1 0.24%Natural History Library 3 0.02% 0 0.00%Total 13,312 418Analysis 1.3: How are MARC records ranked in the search results list?• Most common position for MARC records in a search result set of 25 items, is position 4• MARC records appear in the top five search results 25.35% of the timeAnalysis 1.4: Where do MARC records for known items rank in the search results list?Percentage of Times Available Whole Object Appeared in Search Results by Position NumberResult 1 Result 2 Result 3 Result 4 Result 5 Results6-10Results11-15Results 16-20Results 21-25Total # 125 107 61 49 37 104 67 56 35% in results 18.7% 16.0% 9.1% 7.3% 5.5% 15.6% 10.0% 8.4% 5.2%ResultsResearch Question #2Where are search terms located in MARC records?Analysis 2.1: What fields are used most in retrieving records?91004998 480637001328010002000300040005000600070008000900010000245 505 650 520 600Number of RecordsMARC FieldsMARC Fields Where Search Terms Were Located (Top 5)Analysis 2.2: For records accessed by the patron, is there a difference in where search terms are located?• The 245 Title statement remained highest, appearing 64% more often than the next most utilized field • Instead of the 505 Formatted Contents Note being in second place, the 650 Subject Added Entry is the next most used field• The 505 Formatted Contents Note and 520 Summary fields retained a spot in the top four fieldsAnalysis 2.3: For locally created records and vendor-supplied records, is there a difference in where search terms are located?Percentage of fields used in record retrieval (top 5 most frequent)Field Field Description CMS Records Vendor Records245 Title Statement 43.80% 51.64%505 Formatted Contents Note 28.13% 69.65%650 Subject Added Entry - Topical 40.89% 56.58%520 Summary, etc. 23.41% 76.03%600 Subject Added Entry – Personal Name 59.94% 32.68%Analysis 2.4: What fields are not present in the records?CMS VendorNot Present Present Not Present PresentAuthor (both 1xx and 7xx) 0.75% 99.25% 1.18% 98.82%Subject (any authorized) 4.46% 95.54% 6.73% 93.27%505 Formatted Contents Note 63.96% 36.04% 45.54% 54.46%520 Summary Note 75.60% 24.40% 50.45% 49.55%All Categories Present 14.86% 33.26%Analysis 2.5: Which fields would make the greatest impact if not included in the record?• The top four fields with the greatest impact on retrieval, if not found in a record: 505, 245, 520, and 650 • Without the 505 or 520, 16.86% of all records appearing in results would not have shown up• In contrast, without 650 and 600 fields, only 0.66% of records would not have appeared in the search resultsAnalysis23• Non-MARC records have advantage over MARCOf all records in search results are Non-MARCAnalysis• MARC vendor records appear more often than locally created MARC recordsOf MARC records place in the top 5 search results.Occur more frequently in vendor recordsOccur at the same rate in Vendor and Locally created records24AnalysisTitle fields are most important over all, but…• Ranked higher than 245 for records where search terms matched only one field• Consistently in the top 4 fields that retrieved a record (along with 520)• If missing, 12% of all MARC results would not have been displayed25AnalysisSubject fields are important But…Most important field for matching search termsMost important field for records viewed by patronsWould not have been displayed if field were missingInstance of subject fields being “clicked on”1xx fields were much more likely to be “clicked on”Cataloger will retain ability to make best judgment for each record, but will be asked to consider the following guidelines:- More emphasis on creating 505 and 520 notes in local records- Less emphasis on 6xx fields as an entry point- More emphasis on 1xx fields as an entry point26Take-AwaysMARC-y MARC's Coding Bunch• Anna-Maria Arnljots• Josee Butler• Ryan Bushman (Stats)• Paul Daybell• Barbara Fleming• Maddie Gardner• Alisha Grant• Bryn Larsen• Sabrina Leatham• Rachel Olsen• Andrea Payant • Kurt Meyer• Jessica Mills• Abby Rodabough• MaKayla Roundy• Melanie Shaw• Becky Skeen• Sara Skindelien• Seth Westenburg• Liz WoolcottResourcesFull Procedures: https://usulibrary.atlassian.net/l/c/8H7jgU98Article with final results: Liz Woolcott, Andrea Payant, Becky Skeen & Paul Daybell (2021) Missing the MARC: Utilization of MARC Fields in the Search Process, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 59:1, 28-52, DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2021.1881010Related articlesRobert Heaton & Liz Woolcott.  Unraveling the (Search) String: Assessing Library Discovery Layers Using Patron Queries. Library Assessment Conference, January 2021• Presentation: https://www.libraryassessment.org/program/2020-schedule/#jan21• Paper: https://www.libraryassessment.org/2020-proceedings/Questions?Anna-Maria ArnljotsMetadata Assistantanna-maria.arnljots@usu.eduPaul DaybellArchival Cataloging Librarianpaul.daybell@usu.eduKurt MeyerGovernment Information and E-Resource Catalogerkurt.meyer@usu.eduAndrea PayantMetadata Librarianandrea.payant@usu.eduBecky SkeenSpecial Collection Cataloging Librarianbecky.skeen@usu.eduLiz WoolcottCataloging and Metadata Services Unit Headliz.woolcott@usu.eduThank You!

MARC-y MARC and the Coding Bunch

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=lib_present

MARC-y MARC and the Coding Bunch

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@USU