Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 6831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=6831,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 6831, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0030255679 = product of:
  0.0060511357 = sum of:
    0.0060511357 = product of:
      0.012102271 = sum of:
        0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 7716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012102271 = score(doc=7716,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 7716, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7716)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Library users continue to experience difficulty in using the online catalog, particularly in the area of subject access. This project describes a test of a new design for subject access to online catalogs. The new design requires a wide range of subject searching capabilities and search trees to govern the system's selection of searching capabilities in response to user queries. Is the performance of search trees superior to subject searching approaches chosen at random? This project is geared to make that determination

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 1503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=1503,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1503, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1503)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper recognizes the limitations of the existing file of Library of Congress authority records for subject heading assignment and validation. It makes recommendations for a new machine-readable file of authority records for topical subdivisions and for enhancements to the existing subject authority file. The recommended changes qould enable online systems to assist in subject heading formulation and verify, with limited assistance by human intermediaries, the individual components of subdivided headings. A study of subdivided subject headings in a large bibliographic database forms the basis of the recommendations

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 2431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=2431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2431, 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=2431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=4382,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes the findings of a research project that tested a new subject-access design in an experimental online catalog that had a wide range of subject-searching capabilities and search trees to govern the system's selection of searching capabilities in response to user queries. Library users at 2 academic libraries searched this experimental catalog for topics of their own choosing, judges the usefulness of retrieved titles, and answered post-search questions about their searching experiences. Mixed results from a quantitative analysis (i.e., precision scores) were supplemented with the more conclusive results from a qualitative analysis (i.e., failure analysis). Overall, analyses demonstrated that the new subject-access design that featured search trees was more effective in selecting a subject-searching approach that would prooduce useful information for the subjects users seek than users would select on their own. The qualitative analysis was especially helpful in providing recommendations for improving specific subject-searching approaches to increase their effenciency, increase user perseverance, and encourage browsing. It also suggested enhancements to the new subject-searching design to enable systems to respond to the wide variety of user queries for subjects

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 6742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=6742,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 6742, 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=6742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to examine the performance of online catalogue searches involving personal names and to recommend improvements to the basic system approach to soliciting user queries and searching for them. The research questions addressed in the study wre: how online systems can chose searching approaches on their own that are likely to produce useful retrieval; how online systems solicit queries from users; and how users respond to an experimental online catalogue that prompts them for the different elements of their personal name queries. Improvements include: the implementation of a new design for online catalogue searching that features search trees; new methods for soliciting user queries bearing personal names; and enlisting the participation of online catalogue users in the evaluation of system prompts, instructions, and messages that request input from them

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 385, 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=385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 3679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=3679,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3679, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3679)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Subject queries were extracted from 3 universities' online catalogues and analysed to determine the extend to which they matched subject headings in the LCSH. Computer analyses show that nearly 25% of the subject queries entered by online catalogue users are exact matches of LCSH. Yet, manual analyses show that, even though a user matches or closely matches LCSH-mr, the citations retrieved by this vocabulary are not necessarily satisfactory. Sometimes the closest LCSH-mr is not at all pertinent to a user's topic of interest. This study presents reasons why close matches of LCSH-mr are not always satisfactory and suggests approaches to finding the best matches of the catalogue's controlled vocabulary

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=5553,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search trees are sets of paths with branches or choices that enable systems to carry out the most sensible search approaches at each stage of searches. Report results of a research project, undertaken at Michigan University, which aimed to identify characteristics of the most difficult user queries and recommend enhancements to the new subject searching design to enable it to produce useful retrievals in response to the wide variety of queries users pose to online catalogues. Online catalogues governed by search trees are more effective than the users themselves in selecting subject searching approaches and the enhanced search trees described and tested enlist subject searching approaches that are not typical of the functionality of operational online catalogues. Concludes that design and development is required to upgrade existing online catalogues with search trees and new subject searching functionality to be successful in responding with useful retrievals to the most difficult user queries

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 382, 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=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=5973,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5973, 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=5973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 separate but related projects to study the influence of spelling errors (misspellings), made by searchers, on the subject searching of online catalogues and to suggest ways of improving error detection systems to handle the errors that they detect. This involved the categorization of user queries for subjects that were extracted from the online catalogue transaction logs of 4 USA university libraries. The research questions considered: the prevalence of misspellings in user queries for subjects; and how users respond to online catalogues that detect possible spelling errors in their subject queries. Less than 6% of user queries that match the catalogue's controlled and free text terms were found to contain spelling errors. While the majority of users corrected misspelled query words, a sizable proportion made an action that was even more detrimental than the original misspelling. Concludes with 3 recommended improvements: online catalogues should be equipped with search trees to place the burden of selecting a subject the system instead of the user; systems should be equipped with automatic spelling checking routines that inform users of possibly misspelled words; and online catalogues should be enhanced with tools and techniques to distinguish between queries that fail due to misspellings and correction failures. Cautions that spelling is not a serious problem but can seriously hinder the most routine subject search

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 6930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=6930,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 6930, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introducess a new approach to display retrieved subject headings in subject searching designed to encourage users to browse bibliographic information. Emphasizes the importance of the exact display approach by showing how many user queries could be candidates for this approach, demonstrates an implementation of the exact-display approach in an experimental online catalogue. End user experiences gives opportunities to make recommendations for enhancing the original design of the exact display approach so that future implementations of this approach in operational online catalogues are responsive to the needs of online catalogue users

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 8486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=8486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 8486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a