Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

0.024384238 = product of:
  0.12192119 = sum of:
    0.12192119 = weight(_text_:mail in 551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12192119 = score(doc=551,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.43330348 = fieldWeight in 551, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=551)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to show how an academic library added access points to its digital reference service outside its traditional library web pages (e.g. online catalog, subscription databases). It seeks to determine whether, how, and to what extent these access points were used by patrons. Design/methodology/approach - Almost 1,200 chat, e-mail, and instant message digital reference transactions were examined. The data collected included: status of user; format by which questions were submitted (chat, e-mail, IM); subject area of the question; type of question, and the access point from which the patron submitted the question. The data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Findings - Patrons used the access points in external resources over 25 per cent of the time. They took advantage of the access points as their research needs arose. An increase in the amount of reference transactions received was observed after the addition of the external access points. Practical implications - This study may be useful in planning, administering, and staffing digital reference services. Originality/value - This is currently the only comprehensive study that has examined digital reference transactions in multiple formats, the correlation between access point and information need, and the impact of adding access points to digital reference in external resources.

0.024384238 = product of:
  0.12192119 = sum of:
    0.12192119 = weight(_text_:mail in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12192119 = score(doc=2841,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.43330348 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - In a 31-month period, 1,184 questions addressed to the Internet Public Library's (IPL) reference service remained unanswered on the grounds that they were "out of scope". This paper aims to analyze the questions as artifacts of users' expectations to better chart the distinction between user and librarian views of reference service. Design/methodology/approach - Each question is examined to identify two user expectations, i.e. what kinds of information librarians could provide and what kinds of needs librarians could help meet. Emergent coding with a code-recode rate of 97 per cent identifies 23 types of expected librarian assistance and 28 characteristics of expected applications of that assistance. Findings - Users expect IPL librarians to provide personal advice, analysis, facts, procedures, instruction, technology guidance and evaluation. IPL librarians are expected to help users in making decisions, solving problems, completing processes and developing understanding. Research limitations/implications - Limitations include the use of a single coder and the use of single institution's data set. Mapping these user expectations suggests a need for librarians to consider further development of reference service in terms of its judgment, form, and involvement parameters. Practical implications - Reference service policies and training should be examined to enhance librarians' abilities to consider judgment, form, and involvement parameters primarily from the user's perspective. Originality/value - This paper analyzes that which is rarely seen, i.e. e-mail reference questions which are considered beyond the scope of service. Additionally, the IPL question pool provides a broader range of user mental models than would be found in any geographically bound institution.

0.024139164 = product of:
  0.120695814 = sum of:
    0.120695814 = weight(_text_:mail in 4757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120695814 = score(doc=4757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.42894855 = fieldWeight in 4757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4757)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It has become increasingly common for libraries to provide a reference service which operates via e-mail or through online forms. This paper compares the performance of three digital reference services available on the World Wide Web, namely, AllExperts, Ask a Librarian, and Internet Public Library (a fourth service, Ask Bob, was included initially but eventually excluded). The online digital reference/"expert" services are generally very effective; most provide an answer within three days, and include suggestions for sources of further information. Although the general response rate from all the services was good, library-based services were found to be more trustworthy since they provided the answers together with the sources.

0.024115792 = product of:
  0.06028948 = sum of:
    0.04310565 = weight(_text_:mail in 3992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04310565 = score(doc=3992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.15319592 = fieldWeight in 3992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3992)
    0.017183827 = weight(_text_:22 in 3992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017183827 = score(doc=3992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 3992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3992)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 3.2004 14:46:50

Footnote

Rez. in BuB 56(2004) H.3: "Auskunfts- und Informationsdienst wird in den USA als unverzichtbare und wohl wichtigste bibliothekarische Tätigkeit betrachtet. Daher verwundert nicht, dass die Popularisierung des Internet Bibliothekare und Bibliotheken frühzeitig dazu veranlasst hat, ihre Auskunftsdienstleistungen im Web anzubieten. Dies geschah zunächst durch organisierte Auskunft per E-Mail, später per Webformular und vor allem seit 2000/2001 verstärkt per Chat. Als zusammenfassende Bezeichnung für diese Varianten wird meist der Begriff digital reference verwendet. In den USA, aber auch in Australien, Großbritannien oder Skandinavien schenkt man dem Thema Digital Reference schon seit mehreren Jahren größte Aufmerksamkeit. Die Zahl der bislang dazu publizierten Fachaufsätze lag Ende 2003 bereits weit über 600, jährlich im November findet seit 1999 die »Digital Reference Conference« statt, und mit DIG_REF sowie LiveReference existieren zwei Diskussionslisten, die sich ausschließlich mit Fragen bibliothekarischer Auskunft im Internet beschäftigen. Im vergangenen Jahr sind in den USA allein vier umfangreiche Monographien zu Digital Reference erschienen, darunter das hier zu besprechende Werk von Anne Lipow. ... Gegenwärtig deutet sich an, dass das Thema Digital Reference, Online-Auskunft oder Auskunft per Chat in deutschen Bibliotheken auf mehr Interesse stößt als in den vergangenen Jahren. Nachdem bislang vorwiegend (einige wenige) wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken ChatAuskunft anbieten, haben mehrere Öffentliche Bibliotheken, darunter die ZLB Berlin und die Stadtbücherei Frankfurt am Main, angekündigt, zukünftig auchAuskunftperChatanbieten zu wollen. Eine wichtige Rolle spielt in diesem Zusammenhang der weltweite Auskunftsverbund QuestionPoint, der von OCLC gemeinsam mit der Library of Congress betrieben wird. Sowohl denjenigen, die sich noch im Unklaren sind, als auch jenen, die entsprechende Planungen bereits beschlossen haben, kann der Band von Anne Lipow nur wärmstens empfohlen werden." (H. Rösch)

0.020690711 = product of:
  0.103453554 = sum of:
    0.103453554 = weight(_text_:mail in 2208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103453554 = score(doc=2208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.36767018 = fieldWeight in 2208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2208)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study reports an analysis of referral URL data by the Cornell University IP address from the American Chemical Society servers. The goal of this work is to better understand the tools used and pathways taken when scientists connect to electronic journals. While various methods of referral were identified in this study, most individuals were referred infrequently and followed few and consistent pathways each time they connected. The relationship between the number and types of referrals followed an inverse-square law. Whereas the majority of referrals came from established finding tools (library catalog, library e-journal list, and bibliographic databases), a substantial number of referrals originated from generic Web searches. Scientists are also relying an local alternatives or substitutes such as departmental or personal Web pages with lists of linked publications. The use of electronic mail as a method to refer scientists directly to online articles may be greatly underestimated. Implications for the development of redundant library services such as e-journal lists and the practice of publishers to allow linking from other resources are discussed.

0.020690711 = product of:
  0.103453554 = sum of:
    0.103453554 = weight(_text_:mail in 4759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103453554 = score(doc=4759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.36767018 = fieldWeight in 4759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4759)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports on the performance of five free digital reference services (DRS) in answering ten reference questions. The first five questions were of a simple, factual, nature which should have ready answers. The second set of five were based on the subject of film studies. The answers to these questions varied from a simple one- or two-word response, to more extensive information, such as question 10. This study notes the use of various delivery methods for DRS: chat, Web forms, e-mail. It outlines the individual and co-operative approaches; and the challenges posed to the academic libraries by the so-called expert services. This study also intends to check if the services would ask for further information to ensure accuracy or simply provide the best answer based on the first query. It finds that there is often a trade-off between speed of response and quality or accuracy of response.

0.020690711 = product of:
  0.103453554 = sum of:
    0.103453554 = weight(_text_:mail in 5153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103453554 = score(doc=5153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.36767018 = fieldWeight in 5153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5153)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Finally Belefant-Miller and King analyze the demographic portion of a survey of faculty and staff at the University of Tennessee to determine reading and information use behavior. Faculty each read an average 384 documents per year for their work including an average 161 journal articles. They funded 84% of their own subscriptions, and averaged 4.2 subscriptions per person. Personal computer access was available to 91.5% and 95% made some use of it. About half access e-mail more than once a day spending an average 24 minutes a day. Browsing remains a very important means of document discovery despite the use of universal bibliographic databases. Paper remains the preferred reading interface, with electronic reading about one quarter of paper readings. Self reported publication rates were 3 journal articles per year.

0.020690711 = product of:
  0.103453554 = sum of:
    0.103453554 = weight(_text_:mail in 747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103453554 = score(doc=747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.36767018 = fieldWeight in 747, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=747)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports on a small-scale experiment designed to assess the performance of the freely available digital reference services. Ten questions - five purely fact-finding, and five on the subject of political affairs - were submitted to three digital reference services (DRS), namely, AllExperts, Ask a Librarian, and UCLA E-Mail Reference Service. The findings show that DRS deliver generally accurate information although the time taken to do so varies both between services and within a particular service. The collaborative nature of such endeavours is also likely to continue as individual institutions seek to limit the expense they incur. Instructing users on how to find information independently has always been one of the hallmarks of academic reference services, and this has to be given priority in a digital environment.

0.019245887 = product of:
  0.096229434 = sum of:
    0.096229434 = weight(_text_:22 in 1381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.096229434 = score(doc=1381,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1381, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1381)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

25. 3.2003 13:22:23

0.01724226 = product of:
  0.0862113 = sum of:
    0.0862113 = weight(_text_:mail in 2388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0862113 = score(doc=2388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.30639184 = fieldWeight in 2388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2388)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Hypothesizing that workplace significantly affects information-seeking patterns, this study compared accessibility and use of information sources among 233 Israeli computer scientists and software engineers, employed in industry and academy, using a mail questionnaire, which yielded a usable reply rate of 33%. The two groups were found to differ significantly in age, education, seniority, and type of research they performed (basic vs. applied). Printed textbooks, professional journals, and oral discussions with colleagues or experts in the organization were common to both groups, topping almost all lists of accessibility and use. For most information sources, however, the two groups differed significantly and consistently. Printed professional journals as weIl as printed and electronic conference or meeting papers were consistently more accessible and more often used by the academy group, while the industry group reported greater access to and more frequent use of electronic textbooks and trade or promotional literature. In regard to handbooks and standards, in-house technical reports (printed), government technical reports (Internet), librarians and technical specialists (Internet), and oral discussions with supervisors, no significant differences in accessibility were found, but their use by the industry group was much higher. In both groups, accessibility was only partly related to use, and more so among the academy than the industry group.

0.016496474 = product of:
  0.08248237 = sum of:
    0.08248237 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08248237 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.016496474 = product of:
  0.08248237 = sum of:
    0.08248237 = weight(_text_:22 in 4585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08248237 = score(doc=4585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4585)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

25.11.2005 18:58:22

0.013793808 = product of:
  0.06896904 = sum of:
    0.06896904 = weight(_text_:mail in 4999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06896904 = score(doc=4999,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.24511346 = fieldWeight in 4999, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4999)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Let us start with a simple scenario: a man asks a woman "how high is Mount Everest?" The woman replies "29,029 feet." Nothing could be simpler. Now let us suppose that rather than standing in a room, or sitting on a bus, the man is at his desk and the woman is 300 miles away with the conversation taking place using e-mail. Still simple? Certainly--it happens every day. So why all the bother about digital (virtual, electronic, chat, etc.) reference? If the man is a pilot flying over Mount Everest, the answer matters. If you are a lawyer going to court, the identity of the woman is very important. Also, if you ever want to find the answer again, how that transaction took place matters a lot. Digital reference is a deceptively simple concept on its face: "the incorporation of human expertise into the information system." This lecture seeks to explore the question of how human expertise is incorporated into a variety of information systems, from libraries, to digital libraries, to information retrieval engines, to knowledge bases. What we learn through this endeavor, begun primarily in the library context, is that the models, methods, standards, and experiments in digital reference have wide applicability. We also catch a glimpse of an unfolding future in which ubiquitous computing makes the identification, interaction, and capture of expertise increasingly important. It is a future that is much more complex than we had anticipated. It is a future in which documents and artifacts are less important than the contexts of their creation and use.

0.010345356 = product of:
  0.051726777 = sum of:
    0.051726777 = weight(_text_:mail in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051726777 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.18383509 = fieldWeight in 2230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2230)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Overall, Ronan's book serves as an excellent guide for librarians interested in launching chat reference services and provides a particularly comprehensive overview of software and considerations for selection and expansion. However, the strong focus an basic hands-on setup, administration, and management may limit the appeal of the book for other readers interested in exploring issues of chat reference service in a larger context-such as whether library schools are adequately preparing the next generation of librarians to function in this new virtual environment, or whether the volume of chat reference traffic sufficiently justifies a refocusing of resources and staffing from e-mail, telephone, and face-to-face service points, especially in a 24/7 context. As chat reference moves beyond text into voice and video, and as the current chat start-ups either disappear or become strongly integrated within digital libraries, there will be a continuing need for writers such as Ronan to move beyond the basics and guide us in considering the next steps and the transformations that online reference services are both creating and reflecting within our libraries and the larger society."

0.010345356 = product of:
  0.051726777 = sum of:
    0.051726777 = weight(_text_:mail in 3098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051726777 = score(doc=3098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28137597 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.18383509 = fieldWeight in 3098, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5462847 = idf(docFreq=468, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3098)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.14, S.1304 (L.A. Ennis): "Written by Judith A. Siess, president of Information Bridges International, Inc. and recognized expert in one-person librarianship, The Visible Librarian: Asserting Your Value with Marketing and Advocacy is a concise and easy to read work an the art of self-promotion. As Siess explains in her introduction "libraries are no longer a given" (p. xi). Librarians must leam to market themselves and their services to the people who make decisions and practice proactive advocacy to survive. In The Visible Librarian Siess applies proven and practical marketing, customer service, and public relations strategies to libraries and librarians. The Visible Librarian is divided in to live chapters. The first chapter, "The Primacy of Customer Service and Other Basics," takes a close look at what it means to provide good customer service. Drawing from a variety of resources Siess provides the reader with a basic overview of customer service theory and then demonstrates how to put the theory into practice in libraries of all kinds. Siess also stresses the importance of thinking of library users as customers. Further, one of the most compelling points Siess makes in this chapter is that libraries now must compete with other information providers for customers. Libraries are no longer the only place for people to find information and, as Siess argues, good customer service is what will keep people coming back to the library. This is an excellent introductory chapter for this work. Chapter 2, "Doing the Groundwork: Marketing," is a lively discussion an the role energetic and positive marketing can play in promoting libraries and their services. Siess begins by stressing that marketing is vital to all libraries and that librarians must be the ones to do the marketing. The bulk of this chapter focuses an the "Six Ps" of marketing; "the right product at the right price in the right place, promoted in the right way to the right people at the right point in time" (p. 20). Along with the discussion of the six Ps Siess uses Ranganathan's model to provide the reader with some examples of creative marketing. This chapter also includes a sample customer satisfaction survey and a small section addressing marketing in specialized libraries such as corporate, academic, and hospitals. One of the best discussions is in chapter three, "Publicity: The Tangibles." Siess broadly defines publicity as "anything written or said, seen or heard about your business that communicates the who, what, why, when, and where ... (52). Siess begins by providing an outline explaining the different sections of a public relations plan. The chapter then covers publicity basics and provides the reader with a number of tips for conducting publicity such as, keeping things simple and proof reading copy multiple times. Siess closes with examples of forms of publicity such as brochures, newsletters, business cards, and more. One example given by the author is how she uses her e-mail signature file to publicize her book. Overall, this chapter especially is a practical and useful guide for all types of libraries and librarians.

0.009720641 = product of:
  0.048603203 = sum of:
    0.048603203 = weight(_text_:22 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048603203 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article focuses an analysing students' information needs in terms of conceptual understanding of the topic they propose to study and its consequences for the search process and outcome. The research subjects were 22 undergraduates of psychology attending a seminar for preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. They were asked to make searches in the PsycINFO database for their task in the beginning and end of the seminar. A pre- and postsearch interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded, as were the transaction logs. The results show that during the preparation of research proposals different features of the students' conceptual structure were connected to the search success. Students' ability to cover their conceptual construct by query terms was the major feature affecting search success during the whole process. In the beginning also the number of concepts and the proportion of subconcepts in the construct contributed indirectly via search tactics to retrieving partly useful references. Students' ability to extract new query terms from retrieved items improved search results.

Date

19. 6.2003 17:22:33

0.009720641 = product of:
  0.048603203 = sum of:
    0.048603203 = weight(_text_:22 in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048603203 = score(doc=3838,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:22

0.009622944 = product of:
  0.048114717 = sum of:
    0.048114717 = weight(_text_:22 in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048114717 = score(doc=2854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.217-226

0.008248237 = product of:
  0.041241184 = sum of:
    0.041241184 = weight(_text_:22 in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041241184 = score(doc=1658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1658, 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=1658)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16. 3.2019 16:22:08

0.008248237 = product of:
  0.041241184 = sum of:
    0.041241184 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041241184 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.177656 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050732337 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3450, 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=3450)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 4.2005 14:52:22