Search (28 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0014390396 = product of:
  0.0028780792 = sum of:
    0.0028780792 = product of:
      0.0057561584 = sum of:
        0.0057561584 = weight(_text_:a in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057561584 = score(doc=1163,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a study to investigate end user understanding of subdivided subject headings in their current form and in the form proposed by the first recommendation of the Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference. The impetus for this study was a charge by the Subject Analysis Committee of the ALA to respond to the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference that proposed standardizing the order of subject subdivisions. Questionnaires bearing subdivided subject headings in the 'current' form and in the form proposed were distributed to users and professional cataloguers who were asked for the meaning of individual headings. The end users' responses to cataloguers' responses were compared to determine end users' level of understanding of subdivided subject headings. An analysis of end user interpretations demonstrated that they interpreted the meaning of subject headings in the same manner as cataloguers about 40% of the time for 'current' forms of subject headings and about 32% of the time for 'proposed' forms of subject headings. Concludes with specific recommendations about the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference and general recommendations about increasing end user understanding of subdivided subject headinbgs

Type

a

0.0014390396 = product of:
  0.0028780792 = sum of:
    0.0028780792 = product of:
      0.0057561584 = sum of:
        0.0057561584 = weight(_text_:a in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057561584 = score(doc=5553,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search trees are sets of paths with branches or choices that enable systems to carry out the most sensible search approaches at each stage of searches. Report results of a research project, undertaken at Michigan University, which aimed to identify characteristics of the most difficult user queries and recommend enhancements to the new subject searching design to enable it to produce useful retrievals in response to the wide variety of queries users pose to online catalogues. Online catalogues governed by search trees are more effective than the users themselves in selecting subject searching approaches and the enhanced search trees described and tested enlist subject searching approaches that are not typical of the functionality of operational online catalogues. Concludes that design and development is required to upgrade existing online catalogues with search trees and new subject searching functionality to be successful in responding with useful retrievals to the most difficult user queries

Type

a

0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=5973,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 separate but related projects to study the influence of spelling errors (misspellings), made by searchers, on the subject searching of online catalogues and to suggest ways of improving error detection systems to handle the errors that they detect. This involved the categorization of user queries for subjects that were extracted from the online catalogue transaction logs of 4 USA university libraries. The research questions considered: the prevalence of misspellings in user queries for subjects; and how users respond to online catalogues that detect possible spelling errors in their subject queries. Less than 6% of user queries that match the catalogue's controlled and free text terms were found to contain spelling errors. While the majority of users corrected misspelled query words, a sizable proportion made an action that was even more detrimental than the original misspelling. Concludes with 3 recommended improvements: online catalogues should be equipped with search trees to place the burden of selecting a subject the system instead of the user; systems should be equipped with automatic spelling checking routines that inform users of possibly misspelled words; and online catalogues should be enhanced with tools and techniques to distinguish between queries that fail due to misspellings and correction failures. Cautions that spelling is not a serious problem but can seriously hinder the most routine subject search

Type

a

0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 1713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=1713,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1713, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

User studies demonstrate that nondomain experts do not use the same information-seeking strategies as domain experts. Because of the transformation of integrated library systems into Information Gateways in the late 1990s, both nondomain experts and domain experts have had available to them the wide range of information-seeking strategies in a single system. This article describes the results of a study to answer three research questions: (1) do nondomain experts enlist the strategies of domain experts? (2) if they do, how did they learn about these strategies? and (3) are they successful using them? Interviews, audio recordings, screen captures, and observations were used to gather data from 14 undergraduate students who searched an academic library's Information Gateway. The few times that the undergraduates in this study enlisted search strategies that were characteristic of domain experts, it usually took perseverance, trial-and-error, serendipity, or a combination of all three for them to find useful information. Although this study's results provide no compelling reasons for systems to support features that make domain-expert strategies possible, there is need for system features that scaffold nondomain experts from their usual strategies to the strategies characteristic of domain experts.

Type

a

0.0013707994 = product of:
  0.0027415988 = sum of:
    0.0027415988 = product of:
      0.0054831975 = sum of:
        0.0054831975 = weight(_text_:a in 6930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054831975 = score(doc=6930,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 6930, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introducess a new approach to display retrieved subject headings in subject searching designed to encourage users to browse bibliographic information. Emphasizes the importance of the exact display approach by showing how many user queries could be candidates for this approach, demonstrates an implementation of the exact-display approach in an experimental online catalogue. End user experiences gives opportunities to make recommendations for enhancing the original design of the exact display approach so that future implementations of this approach in operational online catalogues are responsive to the needs of online catalogue users

Type

a

9.693015E-4 = product of:
  0.001938603 = sum of:
    0.001938603 = product of:
      0.003877206 = sum of:
        0.003877206 = weight(_text_:a in 8486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003877206 = score(doc=8486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 8486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.308299E-4 = product of:
  0.0016616598 = sum of:
    0.0016616598 = product of:
      0.0033233196 = sum of:
        0.0033233196 = weight(_text_:a in 5164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033233196 = score(doc=5164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a