Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019306924 = sum of:
  0.012097723 = product of:
    0.04839089 = sum of:
      0.04839089 = weight(_text_:authors in 6519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04839089 = score(doc=6519,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 6519, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6519)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0072092023 = product of:
    0.014418405 = sum of:
      0.014418405 = weight(_text_:m in 6519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014418405 = score(doc=6519,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.10997493 = fieldWeight in 6519, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6519)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Relevance has been a difficult concept to define, let alone measure. In this paper, a simple operational definition of relevance is proposed for a Web-based library catalog: whether or not during a search session the user saves, prints, mails, or downloads a citation. If one of those actions is performed, the session is considered relevant to the user. An analysis is presented illustrating the advantages and disadvantages of this definition. With this definition and good transaction logging, it is possible to ascertain the relevance of a session. This was done for 905,970 sessions conducted with the University of California's Melvyl online catalog. Next, a methodology was developed to try to predict the relevance of a session. A number of variables were defined that characterize a session, none of which used any demographic information about the user. The values of the variables were computed for the sessions. Principal components analysis was used to extract a new set of variables out of the original set. A stratified random sampling technique was used to form ten strata such that each new strata of 90,570 sessions contained the same proportion of relevant to nonrelevant sessions. Logistic regression was used to ascertain the regression coefficients for nine of the ten strata. Then, the coefficients were used to predict the relevance of the sessions in the missing strata. Overall, 17.85% of the sessions were determined to be relevant. The predicted number of relevant sessions for all ten strata was 11 %, a 6.85% difference. The authors believe that the methodology can be further refined and the prediction improved. This methodology could also have significant application in improving user searching and also in predicting electronic commerce buying decisions without the use of personal demographic data

0.014418405 = product of:
  0.02883681 = sum of:
    0.02883681 = product of:
      0.05767362 = sum of:
        0.05767362 = weight(_text_:m in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05767362 = score(doc=5400,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.4398997 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012616104 = product of:
  0.025232209 = sum of:
    0.025232209 = product of:
      0.050464418 = sum of:
        0.050464418 = weight(_text_:m in 347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050464418 = score(doc=347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.38491225 = fieldWeight in 347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012097723 = product of:
  0.024195446 = sum of:
    0.024195446 = product of:
      0.09678178 = sum of:
        0.09678178 = weight(_text_:authors in 4296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09678178 = score(doc=4296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 4296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4296)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This experiment searches an online library catalog employing author surnames, plus title words of books in citations of 8 scholarly works whose authors selected the title words used as being recallable. Searches comprising surname together with two recallable title words, or one if only one was available, yielded a single-screen miniature catalog (minicat) 99.0% of the time

0.010813803 = product of:
  0.021627607 = sum of:
    0.021627607 = product of:
      0.043255214 = sum of:
        0.043255214 = weight(_text_:m in 6030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043255214 = score(doc=6030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.3299248 = fieldWeight in 6030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010585507 = product of:
  0.021171015 = sum of:
    0.021171015 = product of:
      0.08468406 = sum of:
        0.08468406 = weight(_text_:authors in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08468406 = score(doc=2259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

51 subject searches were performed in an online catalog containing about 4,5 million records. Their success was judges in terms of lists of items, known to be relevant to the various topics, compiled by subject specialists (faculty members or authors of articles in specialized encyclopedias). Many of the items known to be relevant were not retrieved, even in very broad searches that sometimes retrieved several hundred records, and very little could be done to make them retrievable within the constraints of present cataloging practice. Librarians should recognize that library catalogs, as now implemented, offer only the most primitive of subject access and should seek to develop different types of subject access tools. - Vgl auch Letter (B.H. Weinberg) in: LTRS 36(1992) S.123-124.

0.010585507 = product of:
  0.021171015 = sum of:
    0.021171015 = product of:
      0.08468406 = sum of:
        0.08468406 = weight(_text_:authors in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08468406 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of an experiment using a simulated title pages, author surnames, and title words, one-third of which were selected by each of the 3 authors, to determine the frequency of one-screen displays when used to search for known items in an implied Boolean retrieval system. Searches comprising surname plus one significant title word produced one-screen displays 78% of time; surname plus 2 words 97% of the time; and surname plus 3 words 98,5%. Three quarters of the significant words were nouns

0.010585507 = product of:
  0.021171015 = sum of:
    0.021171015 = product of:
      0.08468406 = sum of:
        0.08468406 = weight(_text_:authors in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08468406 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.

0.006308052 = product of:
  0.012616104 = sum of:
    0.012616104 = product of:
      0.025232209 = sum of:
        0.025232209 = weight(_text_:m in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025232209 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.19245613 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)