Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04201526 = product of:
  0.16806103 = sum of:
    0.16806103 = weight(_text_:assess in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16806103 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.45590025 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=1801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Subject access to bibliographic data supported by knowledge organization systems, such as subject headings and classification, plays an important role in ensuring the quality of library catalogues. It is generally acknowledged that users have a strong affinity to subject browsing and searching and are inclined tofollow meaningful links between resources. Research studies, however, show that library OPACs are not designed to support or make good use of subject indexes and their underlying semantic structure. A project entitled OPAC semantici was initiated in 2003 by a number of Italian subject specialists and the Italian "Research Group on Subject Indexing" (GRIS) with a goal to analyse and evaluate subject access in Italian library catalogues through a survey of 150 OPACs. Applying the same methodology, a follow-up survey to assess whether any improvement had taken place was conducted five years later, in spring 2008. Analysis of these two surveys indicated that there was a slight improvement. The authors discuss the results of these two surveys, analyse the problems in subject searching in OPACs and explain the recommendations for subject searching enhancement put forward by GRIS. Using the example of Italian OPACs, the authors will attempt to outline some requirements for a subject searching interface and explain how this can be achieved through authority control.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1467, 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=1467)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 2.2015 9:22:39

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.006354578 = product of:
  0.025418311 = sum of:
    0.025418311 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025418311 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22