Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017033914 = product of:
  0.03406783 = sum of:
    0.021117793 = weight(_text_:data in 228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021117793 = score(doc=228,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 228, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=228)
    0.012950035 = product of:
      0.02590007 = sum of:
        0.02590007 = weight(_text_:22 in 228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02590007 = score(doc=228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Presents a brief, critical review of LISA PLaus: the CD-ROM database version of LISA and which includes the database of Current Research in Library and Information Science (CRLIS). The review covers the DOS version only, as it appeared in the Summer 1996 CD-ROM, noting that the Windows version was planned for the future. Points to the way LISA has found its mark, if not its fortune, in LISA Plus and notes its strengths, including: ideal suitability for current awareness in library and information science (LIS); massive and convenient consolidation of the published LIS literature; and massive increase in coverage from 7.900 abstracts in 1993 to over 12.000 currently. Criticizes certain features of LISA Plus, notably: the OPTI-Ware search interface; the combination of 2 databases (LISA and CRLIS) in a single, searchable database; and certain unexpected effects caused by the building of the Subject and Free Text indexes. Points particularly to great lack of consistency in the indexes and the indexing (faults that were fully rectified by a complete overhaul of the data in Summer 1996). Notes that LISA Plus is the first port of call for both information researchers and information science students. The Windows version of LISA Plus was launched in Spring 1997

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.008447117 = product of:
  0.03378847 = sum of:
    0.03378847 = weight(_text_:data in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03378847 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Outlines a structure for analysing information needs. The purpose of the structure is to enable data on users to be collected in a systematic and routine manner. The form of analysis is demonstrated through a consideration of the information needs of newspaper journalists. Aspects of information need considered are: subject, nature, function, viewpoint, authority, quantity, quality, place of origin, speed of delivery, and processing/packaging. Considers the barriers to meeting information needs and training, time, resources, access and information overload. Also assesses the library's role in meeting information needs

0.0064750174 = product of:
  0.02590007 = sum of:
    0.02590007 = product of:
      0.05180014 = sum of:
        0.05180014 = weight(_text_:22 in 5941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05180014 = score(doc=5941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13388468 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03823278 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 2.2008 19:22:51

0.0042235586 = product of:
  0.016894234 = sum of:
    0.016894234 = weight(_text_:data in 5832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016894234 = score(doc=5832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 5832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5832)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study set out to determine: (1) what were the searching characteristics of end-users in a non-academic environment and explain this in the light of their information needs; (2) whether these characteristics were those that were ascribed to end users in the professional literature; (3) whether they differed materially from those of information professionals working in the same fields. Searching characteristics were interpreted in their widest sense to include: command utilisation/knowledge; search success a satisfaction; volume of searching; searching style / approach; duration of searches; file selection; willingness to delegate and levels of training. These issues were explored in relation to 2 practitioner groups - journalists from he Guardian newspaper, and politicians from The House of Commons. Comparative data were also sought from information professionals in these 2 organisations. A mixture of social and statistical methods was used to monitor end-user and professional searching, though transactional log analysis was strongly featured. Altogether the searching behaviour of 170 end users was evaluated in the light of the searching behaviour of 70 librarians. The principal findings were that: in some respects end users did conform to the picture that information professionals have of them: they did seartch with a limited range of commands; more of their searches produced no results, and search statements were simplly constructed. But in other respects they confounded their image - they could be very quick and economical searchers, and they did not display meters of print-out. However, there were variations between individual end users, and it was often possible to find an end-user group that matched an information professional group on one aspect of online searching or another. The online behaviour of end users was very much related to their general information seeking behaviour; and to the fact that they were not trained