Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0022155463 = product of:
  0.0044310926 = sum of:
    0.0044310926 = product of:
      0.008862185 = sum of:
        0.008862185 = weight(_text_:a in 3931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008862185 = score(doc=3931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3931, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002035109 = product of:
  0.004070218 = sum of:
    0.004070218 = product of:
      0.008140436 = sum of:
        0.008140436 = weight(_text_:a in 2179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008140436 = score(doc=2179,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2179, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses a retrieval study that focused on collection level archival records in the OCLC OLUC, made accessible through the EPIC online search system. Data were also collected from the local OPAC at North Carolina University at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in which UNC-CH produced OCLC records are loaded. The chief objective was to explore the retrieval environments in which a random sample of USMARC AMC records produced at UNC-CH were found: specifically to obtain a picture of the density of these databases in regard to each subject heading applied and, more generally, for each records. Key questions were: how many records would be retrieved for each subject heading attached to each of the records; and what was the nature of these subject headings vis a vis the numer of hits associated with them. Results show that large retrieval sets are a potential problem with national bibliographic utilities and that the local and national retrieval environments can vary greatly. The need for specifity in indexing is emphasized

Type

a

0.0019187195 = product of:
  0.003837439 = sum of:
    0.003837439 = product of:
      0.007674878 = sum of:
        0.007674878 = weight(_text_:a in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007674878 = score(doc=2536,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on a comparison of the "content categories" listed in the ANSI/ISO abstracting standards to actual content found in abstracts from the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. The preliminary findings question the fundamental concept underlying these standards, namely, that any one set of standards and generalized instructions can describe and elicit the optimal configuration for abstracts from all subject areas

Type

a

0.0016959244 = product of:
  0.0033918489 = sum of:
    0.0033918489 = product of:
      0.0067836978 = sum of:
        0.0067836978 = weight(_text_:a in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067836978 = score(doc=5170,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Meho and Tibbo show that the Ellis model of information seeking applies to a web environment by way of a replication of his study in this case using behavior of social science faculty studying stateless nations, a group diverse in skills, origins, and research specialities. Data were collected by way of e-mail interviews. Material on stateless nations was limited to papers in English on social science topics published between 1998 and 2000. Of these 251 had 212 unique authors identified as academic scholars and had sufficient information to provide e-mail addresses. Of the 139 whose addresses were located, 9 who were physically close were reserved for face to face interviews, and of the remainder 60 agreed to participate and responded to the 25 open ended question interview. Follow up questions generated a 75% response. Of the possible face to face interviews five agreed to participate and provided 26 thousand words as opposed to 69 thousand by the 45 e-mail participants. The activities of the Ellis model are confirmed but four additional activities are also identified. These are accessing, i.e. finding the material identified in indirect sources of information; networking, or the maintaining of close contacts with a wide range of colleagues and other human sources; verifying, i.e. checking the accuracy of new information; and information managing, the filing and organizing of collected information. All activities are grouped into four stages searching, accessing, processing, and ending.

Type

a

0.0016788795 = product of:
  0.003357759 = sum of:
    0.003357759 = product of:
      0.006715518 = sum of:
        0.006715518 = weight(_text_:a in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006715518 = score(doc=3329,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Compares the performance of partial match options, LEXIS/NEXIS's Freestyle, with that of traditional Boolean retrieval. Defines natural language and the natural language search engines currently available. Although the Boolean searches had better results more often than the Freestyle searches, neither mechanism demonstrated superior performance for every query. These results do not in any way prove the superiority of partial match techniques or exact match techniques, but they do suggest that different queries demand different techniques. Further study and analysis are needed to determine which elements of a query make it best suited for partial match or exact match retrieval

Type

a

0.0015666279 = product of:
  0.0031332558 = sum of:
    0.0031332558 = product of:
      0.0062665115 = sum of:
        0.0062665115 = weight(_text_:a in 8264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062665115 = score(doc=8264,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 8264, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Humanists use a wide variety of textual, graphic, and aural materials in their research. Each type of materials presents special indexing challenges. Research into the nature of these materials and humanists' information seeking behaviors indicate that indexing and surrogation models from the sciences are no longer adequate to meet the humanist's information access needs. New controlled vocabularies and indexing frameworks that reflect the nature of humanistic scholarship are needed

Type

a