Search (100 results, page 5 of 5)

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 2179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=2179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses a retrieval study that focused on collection level archival records in the OCLC OLUC, made accessible through the EPIC online search system. Data were also collected from the local OPAC at North Carolina University at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in which UNC-CH produced OCLC records are loaded. The chief objective was to explore the retrieval environments in which a random sample of USMARC AMC records produced at UNC-CH were found: specifically to obtain a picture of the density of these databases in regard to each subject heading applied and, more generally, for each records. Key questions were: how many records would be retrieved for each subject heading attached to each of the records; and what was the nature of these subject headings vis a vis the numer of hits associated with them. Results show that large retrieval sets are a potential problem with national bibliographic utilities and that the local and national retrieval environments can vary greatly. The need for specifity in indexing is emphasized

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 2674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=2674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on a project undertaken to compare the behaviour of 2 types of users with 2 types of information retrieval interfaces. The user types were search process specialists and subject matter domain specialists with no prior online database search experience. The interfaces were native DIALOG, which uses a procedural language, and OAK, a largely menu based, hence non procedural language interface communicating with DIALOG. 3 types of data were recorded: logs automatically recorded by computer moitoring of all searches, results of structured interviews with subjects at the time of the searches, and results of focus group discussions after all project tasks were completed. The type of user was determined by a combination of prior training, objective in searching, and subject domain knowledge. The results show that the type of interface does affect performance and users adapt their behaviour to interfaces differently. Different combinations of search experience and domain knowledge will lead to different behaviour in use of an information retrieval system. Different kinds of users can best be served with different kinds of interfaces

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 4080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=4080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 4080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information seeking and provision does not occur in a vacuum, but is shaped and affected by the way that individuals convey regard for themselves and for each other. Reports 2 studies that explore the intersection between professional and personal or relational dimensions of intermediary practice during the research phase of a set of online computer search interactions that aim to address user information queries. The 1st study examines and compares, through an interpretative microanalytic approach, explicit and implicit situation defining assumptions contained in the initial talk, or opening moves, of 4 intermediaries in interaction with 2 users each. The 2nd study seeks to verify, quantitatively, interpretative claims developed in the 1st study through an analysis of intermediaries' use of pronouns in the course of their interactions with users. The specific patterns of results gained through this quantitiative study were consistent with those achieved interpretatively in the 1st study. The results of these studies are discussed within a proposed theoretic framework developed from the perspective of a constitutive theory of communication

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Typographical errors can block access to records in online catalogs; but, when a word contains a typo and is also spelled correctly elsewhere in the same record, access may not be blocked. To quantify the effect of typographical errors in records on information retrieval, we conducted a study to measure the proportion of records that contain a typographical error but that do not also contain a correct spelling of the same word. This article presents the experimental design, results of the study, and a statistical analysis of the results.We find that the average proportion of records that are blocked by the presence of a typo (that is, records in which a correct spelling of the word does not also occur) ranges from 35% to 99%, depending upon the frequency of the word being searched and the likelihood of the word being misspelled.

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In Anlehnung an die in den neunziger Jahren durchgeführten Erschließungsprojekte MILOS I und MILOS II, die die Eignung eines Verfahrens zur automatischen Indexierung für Bibliothekskataloge zum Thema hatten, wurde eine empirische Untersuchung anhand einer repräsentativen Stichprobe von Titelsätzen aus dem Österreichischen Verbundkatalog durchgeführt. Ziel war die Prüfung und Bewertung der Einsatzmöglichkeit dieses Verfahrens in den Online-Katalogen des Verbundes. Der Realsituation der OPAC-Benutzung gemäß wurde ausschließlich die Auswirkung auf den automatisch generierten Begriffen angereicherten Basic Index ("Alle Felder") untersucht. Dazu wurden 100 Suchanfragen zunächst im ursprünglichen Basic Index und sodann im angereicherten Basic Index in einem OPAC unter Aleph 500 durchgeführt. Die Tests erbrachten einen Zuwachs an relevanten Treffern bei nur leichten Verlusten an Precision, eine Reduktion der Nulltreffer-Ergebnisse sowie Aufschlüsse über die Auswirkung einer vorhandenen verbalen Sacherschließung.

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 4311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=4311,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 4311, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Automatic content indexing is one of the innovations that are increasingly changing the way libraries work. In theory, it promises a cataloguing service that would hardly be possible with humans in terms of speed, quantity and maybe quality. The German National Library (DNB) has also recognised this potential and is increasingly relying on the automatic indexing of their catalogue content. The DNB took a major step in this direction in 2017, which was announced in two papers. The announcement was rather restrained, but the content of the papers is all the more explosive for the library community: Since September 2017, the DNB has discontinued the intellectual indexing of series Band H and has switched to an automatic process for these series. The subject indexing of online publications (series O) has been purely automatical since 2010; from September 2017, monographs and periodicals published outside the publishing industry and university publications will no longer be indexed by people. This raises the question: What is the quality of the automatic indexing compared to the manual work or in other words to which degree can the automatic indexing replace people without a signi cant drop in regards to quality?

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007072471 = product of:
  0.014144942 = sum of:
    0.014144942 = product of:
      0.028289884 = sum of:
        0.028289884 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028289884 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, 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=2752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:48:28

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of the 13th National Online Meeting. Ed.: M.E. Williams

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A software system has been developed which orders citations retrieved from an online database in terms of relevancy. The system resulted from an effort generated by NASA's Technology Utilization Program to create new advanced software tools to largely automate the process of determining relevancy of database citations retrieved to support large technology transfer studies. The ranking is based on the generation of an enriched vocabulary using lexical association methods, a user assessment of the vocabulary and a combination of the user assessment and the lexical metric. One of the key elements in relevancy ranking is the enriched vocabulary -the terms mst be both unique and descriptive. This paper examines term uniqueness. Six lexical association methods were employed to generate characteristic word indices. A limited subset of the terms - the highest 20,40,60 and 7,5% of the uniquess words - we compared and uniquess factors developed. Computational times were also measured. It was found that methods based on occurrences and signal produced virtually the same terms. The limited subset of terms producedby the exact and centroid discrimination value were also nearly identical. Unique terms sets were produced by teh occurrence, variance and discrimination value (centroid), An end-user evaluation showed that the generated terms were largely distinct and had values of word precision which were consistent with values of the search precision.

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 4297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=4297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores the relevance criteria and search strategies elementary school children applied when searching for information related to a class assignment in a school library setting. Students were interviewed on 2 occasions at different stages of the research process; field observations involved students thinking aloud to explain their search proceses and shadowing as students moved around the school library. Students performed searches on an online catalog, an electronic encyclopedia, an electronic magazine index, and the WWW. Results are presented for children selecting the topic, conducting the search, examining the results, and extracting relevant results. A total of 254 mentions of relevance criteria were identified, including 197 references to textual relevance criteria that were coded into 9 categories and 57 references to graphical relevance criteria that were coded into 5 categories. Students exhibited little concern for the authority of the textual and graphical information they found, based the majority of their relevance decisions for textual material on topicality, and identified information they found interesting. Students devoted a large portion of their research time to find pictures. Understanding the ways that children use electronic resources and the relevance criteria they apply has implications for information literacy training and for systems design

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 5863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=5863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 5863, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information Research & Content Management: Orientierung, Ordnung und Organisation im Wissensmarkt; 23. DGI-Online-Tagung der DGI und 53. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V. DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 8.-10.5.2001. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In order to compare the value of subject descriptors and title keywords as entries to subject searches, two studies were carried out. Both studies concentrated on monographs in the humanities and social sciences, held by the online public access catalogue of the National Library of the Netherlands. In the first study, a comparison was made by subject librarians between the subject descriptors and the title keywords of 475 records. They could express their opinion on a scale from 1 (descriptor is exactly or almost the same as word in title) to 7 (descriptor does not appear in title at all). It was concluded that 37 per cent of the records are considerably enhanced by a subject descriptor, and 49 per cent slightly or considerably enhanced. In the second study, subject librarians performed subject searches using title keywords and subject descriptors on the same topic. The relative recall amounted to 48 per cent and 86 per cent respectively. Failure analysis revealed the reasons why so many records that were found by subject descriptors were not found by title keywords. First, although completely meaningless titles hardly ever appear, the title of a publication does not always offer sufficient clues for title keyword searching. In those cases, descriptors may enhance the record of a publication. A second and even more important task of subject descriptors is controlling the vocabulary. Many relevant titles cannot be retrieved by title keyword searching because of the wide diversity of ways of expressing a topic. Descriptors take away the burden of vocabulary control from the user.

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 1167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=1167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1167, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

This is an authors' manuscript version of a paper accepted for proceedings of TPDL-2018, Porto, Portugal, Sept 10-13. The nal authenticated publication is available online at https://doi.org/will be added as soon as available.

0.00531215 = product of:
  0.0106243 = sum of:
    0.0106243 = product of:
      0.0212486 = sum of:
        0.0212486 = weight(_text_:online in 6519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0212486 = score(doc=6519,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 6519, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6519)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.00531215 = product of:
  0.0106243 = sum of:
    0.0106243 = product of:
      0.0212486 = sum of:
        0.0212486 = weight(_text_:online in 3649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0212486 = score(doc=3649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 3649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

F. W. Lancaster is known for his writing an the state of the art in librarylinformation science. His skill in identifying significant contributions and synthesizing literature in fields as diverse as online systems, vocabulary control, measurement and evaluation, and the paperless society have earned him esteem as a chronicler of information science. Equally deserving of repute is his own contribution to research in the discipline-his evaluation of the MEDLARS operating system. The MEDLARS study is notable for several reasons. It was the first large-scale application of retrieval experiment methodology to the evaluation of an actual operating system. As such, problems had to be faced that do not arise in laboratory-like conditions. One example is the problem of recall: how to determine, for a very large and dynamic database, the number of documents relevant to a given search request. By solving this problem and others attendant upon transferring an experimental methodology to the real world, Lancaster created a constructive procedure that could be used to improve the design and functioning of retrieval systems. The MEDLARS study is notable also for its contribution to our understanding of what constitutes a good index language and good indexing. The ideal retrieval system would be one that retrieves all and only relevant documents. The failures that occur in real operating systems, when a relevant document is not retrieved (a recall failure) or an irrelevant document is retrieved (a precision failure), can be analysed to assess the impact of various factors an the performance of the system. This is exactly what Lancaster did. He found both the MEDLARS indexing and the McSH index language to be significant factors affecting retrieval performance. The indexing, primarily because it was insufficiently exhaustive, explained a large number of recall failures. The index language, largely because of its insufficient specificity, accounted for a large number of precision failures. The purpose of identifying factors responsible for a system's failures is ultimately to improve the system. Unlike many user studies, the MEDLARS evaluation yielded recommendations that were eventually implemented.* Indexing exhaustivity was increased and the McSH index language was enriched with more specific terms and a larger entry vocabulary.

0.00531215 = product of:
  0.0106243 = sum of:
    0.0106243 = product of:
      0.0212486 = sum of:
        0.0212486 = weight(_text_:online in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0212486 = score(doc=2880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report a study of how the test instrument of a simulated work task situation is used in empirical evaluations of interactive information retrieval (IIR) and reported in the research literature. In particular, the author is interested to learn whether the requirements of how to employ simulated work task situations are followed, and whether these requirements call for further highlighting and refinement. Design/methodology/approach - In order to study how simulated work task situations are used, the research literature in question is identified. This is done partly via citation analysis by use of Web of Science®, and partly by systematic search of online repositories. On this basis, 67 individual publications were identified and they constitute the sample of analysis. Findings - The analysis reveals a need for clarifications of how to use simulated work task situations in IIR evaluations. In particular, with respect to the design and creation of realistic simulated work task situations. There is a lack of tailoring of the simulated work task situations to the test participants. Likewise, the requirement to include the test participants' personal information needs is neglected. Further, there is a need to add and emphasise a requirement to depict the used simulated work task situations when reporting the IIR studies. Research limitations/implications - Insight about the use of simulated work task situations has implications for test design of IIR studies and hence the knowledge base generated on the basis of such studies. Originality/value - Simulated work task situations are widely used in IIR studies, and the present study is the first comprehensive study of the intended and unintended use of this test instrument since its introduction in the late 1990's. The paper addresses the need to carefully design and tailor simulated work task situations to suit the test participants in order to obtain the intended authentic and realistic IIR under study.