Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hemminger, B.M."
  1. Hemminger, B.M.: Introduction to the special issue on bioinformatics (2005) 0.03
    0.034931786 = product of:
      0.06986357 = sum of:
        0.06986357 = product of:
          0.13972715 = sum of:
            0.13972715 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13972715 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 14:19:22
  2. Hemminger, B.M.; Losi, T.; Bauers, A.: Survey of bioinformatics programs in the United States. (2005) 0.01
    0.012350251 = product of:
      0.024700502 = sum of:
        0.024700502 = product of:
          0.049401004 = sum of:
            0.049401004 = weight(_text_:22 in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049401004 = score(doc=5264,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5264, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5264)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 14:41:40
  3. Ramdeen, S.; Hemminger, B.M.: ¬A tale of two interfaces : how facets affect the library catalog search (2012) 0.01
    0.010978876 = product of:
      0.021957751 = sum of:
        0.021957751 = product of:
          0.043915503 = sum of:
            0.043915503 = weight(_text_:libraries in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043915503 = score(doc=87,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In the summer of 2008 all University of North Carolina libraries switched from a traditional library catalog interface supporting text-based searching (TextOnly) to a text and facet-based interface (TextFacet) to improve users' search experiences. This study seeks to understand the differences between these two interfaces and how they affect the search experience of the novice user. In this study, 40 participants were asked to search for resources using both interfaces. Their search times and accuracy were measured across three types of search tasks (known, partially known, and exploratory). After completing the searches, they were asked a series of questions about their experiences. The data were analyzed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in both search interfaces. Thirty-six out of 40 participants preferred the TextFacet interface to the TextOnly interface. Using three dependent variables-time, accuracy, and rating-the two interfaces were compared and interactions were tested with the three task types. Search times for the TextFacet were shorter and participants preferred the TextFacet search interface over the TextOnly search interface. Performances across the three task types were different in terms of search time. The partially known and exploratory task types showed similar distributions for rating and accuracy. These distributions were distinctly different from the known task type. The results of this study may assist libraries in developing improved library catalog search interfaces that utilize facets as well as text searching.
  4. Hemminger, B.M.; Lu, D.; Vaughan, K.T.L.; Adams, S.J.: Information seeking behavior of academic scientists (2007) 0.01
    0.009315886 = product of:
      0.018631771 = sum of:
        0.018631771 = product of:
          0.037263542 = sum of:
            0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037263542 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052088603 = queryNorm
                0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The information seeking behavior of academic scientists is being transformed by the availability of electronic resources for searching, retrieving, and reading scholarly materials. A census survey was conducted of academic science researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to capture their current information seeking behavior. Nine hundred two subjects (26%) completed responses to a 15-minute Web-based survey. The survey questions were designed to quantify the transition to electronic communications and how this affects different aspects of information seeking. Significant changes in information seeking behavior were found, including increased reliance on web based resources, fewer visits to the library, and almost entirely electronic communication of information. The results can guide libraries and other information service organizations as they adapt to meet the needs of today's information searchers. Simple descriptive statistics are reported for the individual questions. Additionally, analysis of results is broken out by basic science and medical science departments. The survey tool and protocol used in this study have been adopted for use in a nationwide survey of the information seeking behavior of academic scientists.