Search (114 results, page 1 of 6)

0.08533608 = product of:
  0.17067216 = sum of:
    0.17067216 = sum of:
      0.13367891 = weight(_text_:subject in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13367891 = score(doc=1333,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.82132834 = fieldWeight in 1333, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1333)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

n this article, we report on the first large-scale study of end-user understanding of subject headings. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which children and adults understood subdivided subject headings and to suggest improvements for improving understanding of subject headings. The 1991 Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging, which served as the impetus for the study. We demonstrated that adults understood subject headings better than children; however, both adults and children assigned correct meanings to less than half of the subject headings they examined. Neither subject heading context nor subdivision order had an effect on understanding. Based on our findings, we challenge the library community to make major changes to the Library of Congress Subject Headings system that have the potential to increase end-user understanding of subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0666008 = product of:
  0.1332016 = sum of:
    0.1332016 = sum of:
      0.090042815 = weight(_text_:subject in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.090042815 = score(doc=883,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As part of her doctoral dissertation at Brabant Catholic University in the Netherlands A. Oomens recently held a survey to determine the relative merits of author and subject arrangements for non fiction collections. Although users browsing through the collections were more likely to find material of interest via a subject arrangement, those looking for a particular title were best served by an author arrangement. All users interviewed preferred the arrangement with which they were familiar

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Subject arrangement assists browsing?: subject versus alphabetical arrangement: a study in differences in user behavious

Source

BibliotheekBlad. 1(1997) no.21, S.22-23

0.06056908 = product of:
  0.12113816 = sum of:
    0.12113816 = sum of:
      0.07797937 = weight(_text_:subject in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07797937 = score(doc=760,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

0.050388686 = product of:
  0.10077737 = sum of:
    0.10077737 = sum of:
      0.051453035 = weight(_text_:subject in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051453035 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049324334 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on a dramatic shift from subject to periodical title searching at Colorado University Libraries. States possible reasons for the change, examines problems encountered by users with searching the periodical title index and suggests how this change in online catalogue searching may affect future catalogue design and bibliographic instruction

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.0440901 = product of:
  0.0881802 = sum of:
    0.0881802 = sum of:
      0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045021407 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
      0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043158792 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7914, 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=7914)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The library of the Cité des Sciences et de l'industrie attracts 4.000 visitors daily of whom 25% consult the GEAC system OPAC. Describes a 1992 survey consisting of online questions followed by an interview. The questionnaires were adapted from ones used in the UK and utilised OLIVE (Online Interactive Validation and Evaluation). While difficulties arose from users' inconsistency in their replies and failures to answer questions, it has become clear that subject access is unsatisfactory, sometimes because of mistyping by the searcher but also because of the vocabulary problems and lack of guidance in search strategies

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.4, S.68-71

0.0381531 = product of:
  0.0763062 = sum of:
    0.0763062 = sum of:
      0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04547849 = score(doc=2339,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = 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)

Abstract

Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.0381531 = product of:
  0.0763062 = sum of:
    0.0763062 = sum of:
      0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04547849 = score(doc=297,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
      0.03082771 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03082771 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In information needs, seeking and use (INSU) research, individuals have most commonly been perceived as users (e.g., Kuhlthau, 1991; Dervin & Nilan, 1986; Dervin, 1989; Belkin, 1980). The concept user originates from the user of libraries and other information services and information systems. Over the years the scope of the concept has become wider and it is nowadays often understood in the sense of seekers of information (e.g., Wilson, 1981; Marchionini, 1995) and users of information (e.g., Streatfield, 1983). Nevertheless, the concept has remained ambiguous by being on the one hand universal and on the other hand extremely specific. The purpose of this paper is to map and evaluate views on people whose information behaviour has been in one way or another the core of our research area. The goal is to shed some light on various relationships between the different aspects of doers in INSU studies. The paper is inspired by Dervin's (1997) analysis of context where she identified among other themes the nature of subject by contrasting a `transcendental individual' with a `decentered subject', and Talja's (1997) presentation about constituting `information' and `user' from the discourse analytic viewpoint as opposed to the cognitive viewpoint. Instead of the metatheoretical approach applied by Dervin and Talja, a more concrete approach is valid in the present analysis where no direct arguments for or against the underlying metatheories are itemised. The focus is on doers in INSU studies leaving other, even closely-related concepts (i.e., information, information seeking, knowledge etc.), outside the scope of the paper.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:55:52

0.037791513 = product of:
  0.075583026 = sum of:
    0.075583026 = sum of:
      0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038589776 = score(doc=177,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 177, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=177)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=177,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 177, 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=177)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigated Simon's behavioral decisionmaking theories of bounded rationality and satisficing in relation to young people's decision making in the World Wide Web, and considered the role of personal preferences in Web-based decisions. It employed a qualitative research methodology involving group interviews with 22 adolescent females. Data analysis took the form of iterative pattern coding using QSR NUD*IST Vivo qualitative data analysis software. Data analysis revealed that the study participants did operate within the limits of bounded rationality. These limits took the form of time constraints, information overload, and physical constraints. Data analysis also uncovered two major satisficing behaviors-reduction and termination. Personal preference was found to play a major role in Web site evaluation in the areas of graphic/multimedia and subject content preferences. This study has related implications for Web site designers and for adult intermediaries who work with young people and the Web

0.037791513 = product of:
  0.075583026 = sum of:
    0.075583026 = sum of:
      0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038589776 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, 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=197)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Four focus groups were held with young Web users (10 to 13 years of age) to explore design criteria for Web portals. The focus group participants commented upon four existing portals designed with young users in mind: Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick, Lycos Zone, and Yahooligans! This article reports their first impressions on using these portals, their likes and dislikes, and their suggestions for improvements. Design criteria for children's Web portals are elaborated based upon these comments under four headings: portal goals, visual design, information architecture, and personalization. An ideal portal should cater for both educational and entertainment needs, use attractive screen designs based especially on effective use of color, graphics, and animation, provide both keyword search facilities and browsable subject categories, and allow individual user personalization in areas such as color and graphics

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

0.037791513 = product of:
  0.075583026 = sum of:
    0.075583026 = sum of:
      0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038589776 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
      0.03699325 = weight(_text_:22 in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03699325 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04550679 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 917, 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=917)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler

0.03638279 = product of:
  0.07276558 = sum of:
    0.07276558 = product of:
      0.14553116 = sum of:
        0.14553116 = weight(_text_:subject in 2285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14553116 = score(doc=2285,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.894149 = fieldWeight in 2285, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Subject control in online catalogs. Ed.: R.P. Holley

0.03341973 = product of:
  0.06683946 = sum of:
    0.06683946 = product of:
      0.13367891 = sum of:
        0.13367891 = weight(_text_:subject in 1163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13367891 = score(doc=1163,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.82132834 = fieldWeight in 1163, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a study to investigate end user understanding of subdivided subject headings in their current form and in the form proposed by the first recommendation of the Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference. The impetus for this study was a charge by the Subject Analysis Committee of the ALA to respond to the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference that proposed standardizing the order of subject subdivisions. Questionnaires bearing subdivided subject headings in the 'current' form and in the form proposed were distributed to users and professional cataloguers who were asked for the meaning of individual headings. The end users' responses to cataloguers' responses were compared to determine end users' level of understanding of subdivided subject headings. An analysis of end user interpretations demonstrated that they interpreted the meaning of subject headings in the same manner as cataloguers about 40% of the time for 'current' forms of subject headings and about 32% of the time for 'proposed' forms of subject headings. Concludes with specific recommendations about the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference and general recommendations about increasing end user understanding of subdivided subject headinbgs

0.029778862 = product of:
  0.059557725 = sum of:
    0.059557725 = product of:
      0.11911545 = sum of:
        0.11911545 = weight(_text_:subject in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11911545 = score(doc=367,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.73184985 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study of subject access to UK academic library catalogues was based on a questionnaires end out during Summer 1991. 86 out of a possible 110 questionnaires were returned. All universities and polytechniques now have OPACs which are progressing well towards comprehensive bibliographical coverage of their libraries' stocks. The MARC format is now widely used. Subject access strategies are usually based on either Library of Congress Subject Headings or inhouse indexing systems but almost half the OPACs studies have no separate subject searching option based on subject indexing is expensive and future subject indexing strategies are best based on pre-existing controlled vocabularies. Strategies authority control is essential. A limited range of software strategies is recommended including the need to limit search results

0.028763123 = product of:
  0.057526246 = sum of:
    0.057526246 = product of:
      0.11505249 = sum of:
        0.11505249 = weight(_text_:subject in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11505249 = score(doc=1605,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.7068869 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A survey of catalogue use in 1993 at Utrecht University in the Netherlands showed considerable dissatisfaction with the online catalogue's subject search facilities. Of those who used subject searching 64% preferred subject headings against only 2% who chose classification schedules. Library users make little use of the existing facilities for assistance and leaflets which are available in the library. It has, therefore, been decided to provide a programme of instruction in library use and to move towards a unified system of subject access to the library's catalogue

Footnote

"What do users want? Subject access to collections at Utrecht University Library"

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=492,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a study at the University of Toronto libraries, observers recorded protocols for 100 OPAC search sessions. This article reports on the analysis of these protocols, and examines zero-hit subject searches in particular to explore the the effectiveness of various conversions of users' queries to improve recall. Although the number of zero-hit subject searches analyzes was small, this exploratory study yielded some findings that merit consideration in efforts to improve subject access in OPACs.

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=501,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 2284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=2284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 2284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025726518 = product of:
  0.051453035 = sum of:
    0.051453035 = product of:
      0.10290607 = sum of:
        0.10290607 = weight(_text_:subject in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10290607 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025167733 = product of:
  0.050335467 = sum of:
    0.050335467 = product of:
      0.10067093 = sum of:
        0.10067093 = weight(_text_:subject in 739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10067093 = score(doc=739,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61852604 = fieldWeight in 739, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Results of previous catalog research indicate that users want improvements in subject searching features, noting display of terms related to their topics as especially desirable. This study reports the findings of an examination of subject searchers' use of such a feature provided through online display of authority information from Library of Congress Subject Headings for terms used in the catalog. It was found that, of the terms entered by users, 78 percent were an exact or close match to catalog terms, and another 14 percent matched "see" references. Although additional information was available for nearly half of the searches performed, it was used in only 28 percent of these cases. It is suggested that improvements in subject searching features are needed to encourage use of available syndetic structures