Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023904676 = product of:
  0.04780935 = sum of:
    0.04780935 = product of:
      0.0956187 = sum of:
        0.0956187 = weight(_text_:online in 7480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0956187 = score(doc=7480,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.6035623 = fieldWeight in 7480, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7480)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.018592525 = product of:
  0.03718505 = sum of:
    0.03718505 = product of:
      0.0743701 = sum of:
        0.0743701 = weight(_text_:online in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0743701 = score(doc=3869,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers factors lowering both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in online searching. 32 searchers with different backgrounds first analyzed 12 search requests, and after 2 months 8 of the same search requests, and formulated query statements from them for a search. Intersearcher consistency was the results of more than one factor. There were more differences between searchers ion the selection of search terms than in the selection of search concepts. The most important factor lowering intrasearcher consistency was that the same searcher selected different search terms to describe the same search concepts on various occasions

Source

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

0.011268772 = product of:
  0.022537544 = sum of:
    0.022537544 = product of:
      0.04507509 = sum of:
        0.04507509 = weight(_text_:online in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04507509 = score(doc=2881,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Proposes a model of the search term selection process based on an empirical study of professional searchers during the pre-online stage of the search process. The model chraracterises the selection of search terms as the navigation of different discourses. 6 discourses emerged as sources of search terms: controlled vocabularies, documents and the domain, the practice of indexing, clients' search request, databases and the searchers' own search experience. Searchers navigate the discourses dynamically and have preferences for certain discourses. Emphasises the multiplicity and complexity of sources of search terms, the dynamic nature of the search term selection process and the complex analysis and synthesis of differences and similarities among sources of search terms. Searchers may need to understand fundamental aspects of multiple discourses in order to select search terms

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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