Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

0.019131469 = product of:
  0.038262937 = sum of:
    0.022910692 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022910692 = score(doc=3010,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3010, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3010)
    0.0153522445 = product of:
      0.030704489 = sum of:
        0.030704489 = weight(_text_:22 in 3010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030704489 = score(doc=3010,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3010, 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=3010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:03:43

0.019101143 = product of:
  0.038202286 = sum of:
    0.02592049 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02592049 = score(doc=1427,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
    0.012281795 = product of:
      0.02456359 = sum of:
        0.02456359 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02456359 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 2.2008 14:17:00

LCSH

Information retrieval / Study and teaching / Germany

Subject

Information retrieval / Study and teaching / Germany

0.018328553 = product of:
  0.07331421 = sum of:
    0.07331421 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07331421 = score(doc=4321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 4321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4321)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.012281795 = product of:
  0.04912718 = sum of:
    0.04912718 = product of:
      0.09825436 = sum of:
        0.09825436 = weight(_text_:22 in 5649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09825436 = score(doc=5649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 4.2002 17:30:22

0.01074657 = product of:
  0.04298628 = sum of:
    0.04298628 = product of:
      0.08597256 = sum of:
        0.08597256 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08597256 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, 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=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.01074657 = product of:
  0.04298628 = sum of:
    0.04298628 = product of:
      0.08597256 = sum of:
        0.08597256 = weight(_text_:22 in 1381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08597256 = score(doc=1381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25. 3.2003 13:22:23

0.01074657 = product of:
  0.04298628 = sum of:
    0.04298628 = product of:
      0.08597256 = sum of:
        0.08597256 = weight(_text_:22 in 4364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08597256 = score(doc=4364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4364, 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=4364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:29:08

0.009720184 = product of:
  0.038880736 = sum of:
    0.038880736 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038880736 = score(doc=574,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 574, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A conceptually relaxed utilization of the variable "search experience" makes it difficult for researchers to perform meaningful cross-study comparisons. The purpose of this study was to examine how search experience is defined and measured when used as a research variable. We implemented a qualitative analysis of 32 library and information science (LIS) research articles. We found that there was inconsistent terminology usage and measurements. Specifically, there were 21 unique labels to describe the search experience and 18 different measurements. The majority of the studies used a generic label "search experience" and relied on the reader to grasp specific context of the electronic information retrieval environment to which the variable applies from the description of the overall research design. In addition, there was a strong preference for measures that represented subjective self-reporting about the level of exposure to some information retrieval system. It is evident that there is a need for articles to contain detailed definitions of search experience variables for readers to truly understand the findings.

0.009720184 = product of:
  0.038880736 = sum of:
    0.038880736 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038880736 = score(doc=2033,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Collaborative information behavior is an essential aspect of organizational work; however, we have very limited understanding of this behavior. Most models of information behavior focus on the individual seeker of information. In this paper, we report the results from two empirical studies that investigate aspects of collaborative information behavior in organizational settings. From these studies, we found that collaborative information behavior differs from individual information behavior with respect to how individuals interact with each other, the complexity of the information need, and the role of information technology. There are specific triggers for transitioning from individual to collaborative information behavior, including lack of domain expertise. The information retrieval technologies used affect collaborative information behavior by acting as important supporting mechanisms. From these results and prior work, we develop a model of collaborative information behavior along the axes of participant behavior, situational elements, and contextual triggers. We also present characteristics of collaborative information system including search, chat, and sharing. We discuss implications for the design of collaborative information retrieval systems and directions for future work.

0.009720184 = product of:
  0.038880736 = sum of:
    0.038880736 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038880736 = score(doc=3299,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3299, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the traditional model of information retrieval, searchers and indexers choose query and index terms, respectively, and these term choices are ultimately compared in a matching process. One of the main challenges in information science and information retrieval is that searchers and indexers often do not choose the same term even though the item is relevant to the need whereas at other times they do choose the same term even though it is not relevant. But if both searchers and indexers have the opportunity to review feedback data showing the success or failure of their previous term choices, then there exists an evolutionary force that, all else being equal, will lead to helpful convergence in searchers' and indexers' term usage when the information is relevant, and helpful divergence of term usage when it is not. Based on learning theory, and new theory presented here, it is possible to predict which terms will emerge as the terminological conventions that are used by groups of searchers and the indexers of relevant and nonrelevant information items.

0.0092113465 = product of:
  0.036845386 = sum of:
    0.036845386 = product of:
      0.07369077 = sum of:
        0.07369077 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07369077 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.0092113465 = product of:
  0.036845386 = sum of:
    0.036845386 = product of:
      0.07369077 = sum of:
        0.07369077 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07369077 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5498, 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=5498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 2.2003 14:18:22

0.0092113465 = product of:
  0.036845386 = sum of:
    0.036845386 = product of:
      0.07369077 = sum of:
        0.07369077 = weight(_text_:22 in 4585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07369077 = score(doc=4585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25.11.2005 18:58:22

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=4999,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4999, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4999)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

LCSH

Information retrieval

Series

Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval & services; 1

Subject

Information retrieval

0.008924409 = product of:
  0.017848818 = sum of:
    0.0091642765 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0091642765 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.06684181 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
    0.008684541 = product of:
      0.017369082 = sum of:
        0.017369082 = weight(_text_:22 in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017369082 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Classification

327.12 22

DDC

327.12 22

Footnote

The role of technology in both intelligence and information science is just one question explored in Covert and Overt, which takes on more fundamental issues as well. Even the ubiquitous "What is information?" debate is revisited. But the questions asked are always subordinate to the overarching theme of bringing concepts and techniques of intelligence and information science together and examining the results. The process and lifecycle of intelligence is explored and mapped to information science methods, primarily indexing and information retrieval. In more historical explorations undertaken by contributors, it becomes apparent that intelligence and information science have always been closely aligned, but that this alignment is not always perceived by those engaged in intelligence work. Interestingly, and probably not surprisingly, a general consensus seems to be that library and information science practitioners involved in intelligence were (and are) more capable of seeing the complementary nature of the techniques information science brings to intelligence services than many intelligence professionals, who often needed demonstrations of efficacy to be convinced. Structurally, the book is divided into four parts, moving from anecdotal accounts through to discussions of definition and theory. Part 1, "Information Science and Intelligence: Reminiscences and Reflections from World War II to Today" is comprised of the personal stories of information scientists who also served as intelligence professionals at various times during and since World War II, collected from special panel presentations at the 2001 and 2002 American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) annual conferences. These contributors include former American and British servicemen and intelligence officers who all relate a common experience of dealing with information, documents, and other records in the pursuit of intelligence goals.

0.008417926 = product of:
  0.033671703 = sum of:
    0.033671703 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033671703 = score(doc=1270,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.24559249 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.008100153 = product of:
  0.03240061 = sum of:
    0.03240061 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240061 = score(doc=3469,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3469, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3469)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Domain novice users in the beginning stages of researching a topic find themselves searching for information via information retrieval (IR) systems before they have identified their information need. Pre-Internet access technologies adapted by current IR systems poorly serve these domain novice users, whose behavior might be characterized as rudderless and without a compass. In this article we describe a conceptual design for an information retrieval system that incorporates standard information need identification classification and subject cataloging schemes, called the INIIReye System, and a study that tests the efficacy of the innovative part of the INIIReye System, called the Associative Index. The Associative Index helps the user put together his or her associative thoughts-Vannevar Bush's idea of associative indexing for his Memex machine that he never actually described. For the first time, data from the study reported here quantitatively supports the theoretical notion that the information seeker's information need is identified through transformation of his/her knowledge structure (i.e., the seeker's cognitive map or perspective an the task far which information is being sought).

0.008100153 = product of:
  0.03240061 = sum of:
    0.03240061 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240061 = score(doc=4742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4742)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper takes forward strands from "Evaluating the quality of library portals" by the author and places them in the context of different approaches to teaching students about information use. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece which examines the impact on user behaviour of traditional mechanical library skills training (such as "library orientation", "bibliographic instruction", or "information skills training" rather than true information literacy-based teaching). The paper points out the similarity in the effects of such teaching to the effects of offering users a more powerful mechanical information retrieval tool (such as a library portal or internet search engine) without effective support on how the information retrieved should be used for significant educational outcomes. Findings - For librarians to be custodians of the highest standards of intelligent information use, they must demonstrate a meaningful, rather than a mechanical understanding and application of information literacy in their everyday practice. Without this, information users will rightly turn to new, non-mediated forms of information use such as internet search engines, which can deal with purely technical challenges of information retrieval superficially well. Both the users and the profession itself will be the poorer as a result. Research limitations/implications - An expression of opinion about the dangers of pedagogically underdeveloped user education on user behaviour. Practical implications - This opinion piece gives some clear and practical insights for the application of information literacy principles to library practice. Originality/value - This piece points out the ironic similarities in the effect of a mechanistic or tool-based approach to user education and unmediated user access to internet search engines or Library portals: above all, a "more is better" approach in the information user, marked by citing too much poorly digested, poorly evaluated data.

0.0076761222 = product of:
  0.030704489 = sum of:
    0.030704489 = product of:
      0.061408978 = sum of:
        0.061408978 = weight(_text_:22 in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061408978 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 3.2006 16:29:22

0.0076761222 = product of:
  0.030704489 = sum of:
    0.030704489 = product of:
      0.061408978 = sum of:
        0.061408978 = weight(_text_:22 in 2318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061408978 = score(doc=2318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2318, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.2009 19:51:28