Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.042185232 = product of:
  0.06327785 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 6143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=6143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6143)
    0.055313893 = product of:
      0.110627785 = sum of:
        0.110627785 = weight(_text_:de in 6143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110627785 = score(doc=6143,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.56977195 = fieldWeight in 6143, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Type

a

0.011227056 = product of:
  0.016840585 = sum of:
    0.0045979903 = weight(_text_:a in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045979903 = score(doc=1447,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
    0.012242594 = product of:
      0.024485188 = sum of:
        0.024485188 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024485188 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, 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=1447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.

Date

21. 4.2002 10:22:31

0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.003128536 = product of:
  0.009385608 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 5584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=5584,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5584, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5584)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on a model and patterns of use of a library catalog that can be accessed through the Internet. Three categories of users are identified. individuals who perform a search of the catalog, tourists who look only at opening pages of the library catalog's site, and Web spiders that come to the site to obtain pages for indexing the Web. A number of types of use activities are also identified, and can be grouped with the presearch phase (which takes place before any searching begins): the search phase, the display phase (in which users display the results of their search), and phases in which users make errors, ask the system for help or assistance, and take other actions. An empirical investigation of patterns of use of a university Web-based library catalog was conducted for 479 days. During that period, the characteristics of about 2.5 million sessions were recorded and analyzed, and usage trends were identified. Of the total, 62% of the sessions were for users who performed a search, 27% were from spiders, and 11% were for tourists. During the study period, the average search session lasted about 5 minutes when the study began and had increased to about 10 minutes 16 months later. An average search consisted of about 1.5 presearch actions lasting about 25 seconds, about 5.3 display actions, and 2.5 searches per session. The latter two categories are in the range of 35-37 seconds per session each. There were major differences in usage (number of searches, search time, number of display actions, and display time), depending upon the database accessed

Type

a

0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=852,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 852, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=852)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=5624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002682161 = product of:
  0.008046483 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=6110,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Online catalog users search predominately by subject, yet it is the most difficult search to perform and retrieves records only about one-half of the time. A new generation of OPACs (online public access catalogs) is on the horizon, the Web-based OPAC. Web-based OPACs allow users to access online catalogs through a WWW (World Wide Web) interface and have the potential to improve patrons' ability to search by subject. But will this potential be realized? This article proposes some basic guidelines that can be incorporated into Web-based OPAC interface design to help users perform subject searches more effectively, and evaluates how well Web-based OPACs currently in operation address the subject searching problem

Type

a

0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 6857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=6857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6857)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=3103,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There's something magical about interface design. The research done to determine user behavior that leads to design decisions is positively fascinating. This time round we have a group at Penn State testing the proficiency of users on their brand new OPAC. The users were divided into two groups, "experienced" and "first-time". Results confirm other studies in this area, namely, that when confronting an OPAC, users both experienced and not, assume they're in front of something similar to Google. They go for keywords by default, expect results ranked by relevancy (as opposed to chronology), make no use of Boolean Operators, have no idea of what information is actually indexed, and lack the curiosity or time to "learn the system". "We can either abandon this population," the author stresses, "or design systems that do not require expert knowledge to be used effectively.

Type

a

0.0025028288 = product of:
  0.0075084865 = sum of:
    0.0075084865 = weight(_text_:a in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075084865 = score(doc=577,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 577, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=577)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Users move from one state (or task) to another in an information system's labyrinth as they try to accomplish their work, and the amount of time they spend in each state varies. This article uses continuous-time stochastic models, mainly based on semi-Markov chains, to derive user state transition patterns (both in rates and in probabilities) in a Web-based information system. The methodology was demonstrated with 126,925 search sessions drawn from the transaction logs of the University of California's MELVYL® library catalog system (www.melvyLucop.edu). First, user sessions were categorized into six groups based on their similar use of the system. Second, by using a three-layer hierarchical taxonomy of the system Web pages, user sessions in each usage group were transformed into a sequence of states. All the usage groups but one have third-order sequential dependency in state transitions. The sole exception has fourth-order sequential dependency. The transition rates as well as transition probabilities of the semi-Markov model provide a background for interpreting user behavior probabilistically, at various levels of detail. Finally, the differences in derived usage patterns between usage groups were tested statistically. The test results showed that different groups have distinct patterns of system use. Knowledge of the extent of sequential dependency is beneficial because it allows one to predict a user's next move in a search space based on the past moves that have been made. It can also be used to help customize the design of the user interface to the system to facilitate interaction. The group CL6 labeled "knowledgeable and sophisticated usage" and the group CL7 labeled "unsophisticated usage" both had third-order sequential dependency and had the same most-frequently occurring search pattern: screen display, record display, screen display, and record display. The group CL8 called "highly interactive use with good search results" had fourth-order sequential dependency, and its most frequently occurring pattern was the same as CL6 and CL7 with one more screen display action added. The group CL13, called "known-item searching" had third-order sequential dependency, and its most frequently occurring pattern was index access, search with retrievals, screen display, and record display. Group CL14 called "help intensive searching," and CL18 called "relatively unsuccessful" both had thirdorder sequential dependency, and for both groups the most frequently occurring pattern was index access, search without retrievals, index access, and again, search without retrievals.

Type

a

0.002473325 = product of:
  0.0074199745 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=118,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 118, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=118)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paradigm shift from the old system centered view to a user centered approach involves new tools needed for accessing library resources under the condition that the user's needs are taken into account. An end-user, who has only a little knowledge of classification systems or thesauri, understands little of the mode of the representation of contents and the use of authority lists. In addition, he will have difficulty in formulating his question in a precise manner. He needs to know better what the library proposes in order to define of what use it would be for him. Many studies have been carried out on the use of controlled vocabularies (classification, authority lists, thesauri) as searching devices. It is surprising to find that relatively little attention has been given to the role of these tools in filtering and browsing processes. We have developed a prototype named CATHIE (CATalog Hypertextuel Interactif et Enrichi) that supports such filtering and interactive reformulation features

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 6512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=6512,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 6512, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6512)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=113,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The World Wide Web (simplified here to "Web") is well-known for its "point and click" graphical user interface (GUI) and hyperlink search and navigate capabilities. When OPACs are placed in this operational context, users can easily hyperlink from a bibliographic display to related search terms, class marks, or bibliographic records. This hyperlinking capability is not available in most conventional text-based OPACs. As more and more users undertake their searches on Web-based information retrieval systems such as OPACs, it is natural to ask, "Are Web-based OPACs more effective retrieval systems than their conventional predecessors?" This paper presents the findings of an experimental study which compared users' search performance, assessments of ease of use, and satisfaction with search results after use of a Web OPAC or its conventional counterpart. The primary questions addressed by this research center on the influence of two experimental factors, OPAC search interface style and search task level of difficulty, on the dependent variables: actual search performance, perceptions of ease of use, and user assessments of satisfaction with search results. It was hypothesized that Web OPACs would be assessed as easier to use and that they would outperform conventional OPACs when measured by actual search results and users' levels of satisfaction with search results. Web OPAC searchers outperformed Text OPAC searchers, but search task level of difficulty is a major determinant of search success. The study also found little association between searchers' level of satisfaction with results and actual search performance

Type

a

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=5100,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.0017697671 = product of:
  0.0053093014 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 2523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=2523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2523)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.001564268 = product of:
  0.004692804 = sum of:
    0.004692804 = weight(_text_:a in 1174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004692804 = score(doc=1174,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1174, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1174)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.0013273255 = product of:
  0.0039819763 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 4043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=4043,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4043, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4043)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a