Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018443892 = product of:
  0.07377557 = sum of:
    0.07377557 = weight(_text_:search in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07377557 = score(doc=6936,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The distribution of bibliographic records in on-line bibliographic databases is examined using 14 different search topics. These topics were searched using the DIALOG database host, and using as many suitable databases as possible. The presence of duplicate records in the searches was taken into consideration in the analysis, and the problem with lexical ambiguity in at least one search topic is discussed. The study answers questions such as how many databases are needed in a multifile search for particular topics, and what coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases. The distribution of the percentages of records retrieved over a number of databases for 13 of the 14 search topics roughly fell into three groups: (1) high concentration of records in one database with about 80% coverage in five to eight databases; (2) moderate concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in seven to 10 databases; and (3) low concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in 16 to 19 databases. The study does conform with earlier results, but shows that the number of databases needed for searches with varying complexities of search strategies, is much more topic dependent than previous studies would indicate.

0.011547703 = product of:
  0.046190813 = sum of:
    0.046190813 = weight(_text_:search in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046190813 = score(doc=3816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 3816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3816)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information scattering is an often observed phenomenon related to information collections where there are a few sources that have many items of relevant information about a topic, while most sources have only a few. This entry discusses the original discovery of the phenomenon, the types of information scattering observed across many different information collections, methods that have been used to analyze the phenomenon, explanations for why and how information scattering occurs, and how these results have informed the design of systems and search strategies. The entry concludes with future challenges related to building computational models to more precisely describe the process of information scatter, and algorithms which help users to gather highly scattered information.

0.0072720814 = product of:
  0.029088326 = sum of:
    0.029088326 = weight(_text_:web in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029088326 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.