Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0212486 = product of:
  0.0424972 = sum of:
    0.0424972 = product of:
      0.0849944 = sum of:
        0.0849944 = weight(_text_:online in 6891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0849944 = score(doc=6891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.5364998 = fieldWeight in 6891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.018592525 = product of:
  0.03718505 = sum of:
    0.03718505 = product of:
      0.0743701 = sum of:
        0.0743701 = weight(_text_:online in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0743701 = score(doc=3871,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 3871, 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=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines the searching behaviour of Guardian journalists searching FT PROFILE online system. Using transactional log analysis compares the searching styles of journalists with those of Guardian librarians. In some respects end users conform to the picture that professionals have of them - they search with a very limited range of commands - but in other respects they confound that image - they are very quick and economical searchers. Their behaviour relates to their general information seeking behaviour, and their searching styles would be seen in this regard

Source

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

0.0131469015 = product of:
  0.026293803 = sum of:
    0.026293803 = product of:
      0.052587606 = sum of:
        0.052587606 = weight(_text_:online in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052587606 = score(doc=2348,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.33194235 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An analysis of transaction logs from an academic library online catalog describes instances in which users have tried both controlled and uncontrolled (title keyword) vocabulary subject access during the same search session. Eight hypotheses were tested. Over 6.6% of all dial access search sessions contained both methods of subject access. Over 58% of the isolated sessions began with an uncontrolled vocabulary attempt. Over 76% contained only one vocabulary shift. On average, user persistence was greater during controlled vocabulary search logs, but search output was greater during uncontrolled vocabulary search logs. Several recommendations regarding catalog design and instruction are made.

0.009390644 = product of:
  0.018781288 = sum of:
    0.018781288 = product of:
      0.037562575 = sum of:
        0.037562575 = weight(_text_:online in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037562575 = score(doc=2423,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users

0.008840589 = product of:
  0.017681178 = sum of:
    0.017681178 = product of:
      0.035362355 = sum of:
        0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035362355 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=5105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 5105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die Einführung von CD-ROM Datenbanken als neue Informationstechnologie hat die Formen der Informationsgewinnung in bestimmten wissenschaftlichen Fachgebieten grundlegend geändert. Der Beitrag berichtet über Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Begleitforschung bei Endnutzerrecherchen in der CD-ROM-Version der Datenbank MEDLINE. Hierzu wurden drei verschiedene Erhebungen durchgeführt. Hiernach ist die überwiegende Zahl der Endnutzer (89,3%) mit dem jeweiligen Rechercheresultat zufrieden, wobei Benutzer mit geringer Rechercheerfahrung eine höhere Zufriedenheitsrate erreichen als Benutzer mit umfangreicheren Recherchekenntnissen. Die Gründe zur Nutzung von CD-ROM-Systemen resultieren voriwegend aus der klinischen Alltagsroutine oder täglichen Forschungspraxis, während vermittelte Online-Literatursuchen tendenziell häufiger im Zusammenhang mit einmaligen Ereignissen der wissenschaftlichen Aus- und Weiterbildung stehen. Die selbständige CD-ROM Literaturrecherche stellt für die befragten Ärzte und Wissenschaftler die bevorzugte Methode der Informationsgewinnung dar. Die analysierten Endnutzerrecherchen weisen allerdings Fehler und Defizite hinsichtlich einer optimalen Suchstrategie auf, die zu unbemerktn Informationsverlusten und zu Fehlbeurteilungen des wissenschaftlichen Kenntnisstandes führen