Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00406575 = product of:
  0.028460251 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 7480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=7480,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 7480, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7480)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=7480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 7480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7480)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to look at the public libraries, university libraries and special libraries and information bureaus as online search environments in Finland at the beginning of the 1990s. Their challenges and opportunities are looked at by paying attention to their general and specific environments. The changes in the general environment of libraries are described briefly. The differences of specific online search environements are analyzed by paying attention to (i) the age of organisations and the establishment of onlines searches, (ii) the size of organisations and the division of labour in online searching, (iii) the available online information retrieval resources, (iv) the number of online searches, (v) the online searching policies, i.e. the participation of the clients in the search process and the adopted fee policy, and (vi) the clients of online searches. Public libraries, university libraries and special libraries and information bureaus clearly differ from each other as online search environments. So also do their challenges and opportunities differ. A common challenge for all search environments is, however, an ever clearer way to relate the costs of onlines earches to the profits received from them

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1667)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=1667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1667)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Discusses a new model of search term selection and its implications. The model characterizes the selection of search terms as the navigation of multiple discourses, including controlled vocabularies, documents and their domains, the practice of indexing, clients' speech and search requests, databases and the searcher's own knowledge of the search process. Suggests that the multiple aspects of these discourses influences search term selection. The discourse of a controlled vocabulary is analyzed from various aspects and described as an example of a discourse. Professional searchers and the end users may benefit from adopting this new model of search term selection, learning to see alternative, effective search terms in addition to the words they would normally use. The model can also be incorporated in human computer interfaces of information retrieval systems to support the selection of search terms in a passive or active manner

0.002011945 = product of:
  0.014083615 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.008029819 = product of:
      0.024089456 = sum of:
        0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024089456 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions

Source

Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.2, S.173-190

8.737902E-4 = product of:
  0.012233062 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=3869,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Imprint

Oxford : Learned Information

Source

Online information 95: Proceedings of the 19th International online information meeting, London, 5-7 December 1995. Ed.: D.I. Raitt u. B. Jeapes

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=999,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 999, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=999)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Defines a search request as a verbal description of a client's information need, submitted by a client and processed by an intermediary interpreting the need. The requests differ from each other and this affects the results. 12 different properties of search requests have been idetified, but are not easy to measure. Examines the properties of specificity and concreteness; complexity; and thesaural and grammatical status. Presents a model of easy (simple, specific, clear) and difficult (complex, general and unclear) requests

5.04483E-4 = product of:
  0.0070627616 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 15(1990) no.2, S.8-15

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.4, S.312-326

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The selection and representation of concepts in indexing of the same documents in 2 databases of library and information studies are considered. the authors compare the indexing of 49 documents in KINF and LISA. They focus on the types of concepts presented in indexing, the degree of concept consistency in indexing, and similarities and differences in the indexing of concepts. The largest group of indexed concepts in both databases was the category of entities while concepts belonging to the category of properties were almost missing in both databases. The second largest group of indexed concepts in KINF was the category of activities and in LISA the category of dimensions. Although the concept consistency between KINF and LISA remained rather low and was only 34%, there were approximately 2,2 concepts per document which were indexed from the same documents in both databses. These common concepts belonged mostly to the category of entities