Search (30 results, page 2 of 2)

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 3615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=3615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 3615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3615)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

"As noted by many critics, the present design of online subject access, be it through library catalogs or online retrieval systems, does not accomodate human variability in searching (or indexing). This calls for radically different design principles and inplementations ir order to accomodate the observed patterns, interactions,and differences in human information behavior, of which the overlap findings are one of the important manifestations" (S.107)

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=811,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information science is best defined as a discipline in terms of the problems it addresses. Its origins date back to the scientific and technical revolution after the 2nd World War, and its development has been essentially characterised by interdisciplinarity. Librarianship, computer science, cognitive science and communication studies all share interests with infomation science, but with increasing emphasis on the information society and the information industry dictated by technological imparatives, information science is now at a critical point in its evolution. The problem it sets out to solve are not decreasing but changing, with the pressure to improve access to an ever increasing store of knowledge. The social need for information science is evident, whatever the name given to the knowledge and skills which it encompasses

Content

Translation of a presentation given at the International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science held at the University of Tampere in Aug 1991

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 3812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=3812,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3812, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3812)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The purpose of this entry is to provide an overview of information science as a field or discipline, including a historical perspective to illustrate the events and forces that shaped it. Information science is a field of professional practice and scientific inquiry dealing with effective communication of information and information objects, particularly knowledge records, among humans in the context of social, organizational, and individual need for and use of information. Information science emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War, as did a number of other fields, addressing the problem of information explosion and using technology as a solution. Presently, information science deals with the same problems in the Web and digital environments. This entry covers problems addressed by information science, the intellectual structure of the field, and the description of main areas-information retrieval, human information behavior, metric studies, and digital libraries. This entry also includes an account of education related to information science and conclusions about major characteristics.

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 5261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=5261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 5261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5261)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

ASIS'90: Information in the year 2000: from research to application. Proc. 33rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 6711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=6711,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 6711, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6711)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In anticipation of the explosive growth of digital libraries, a complex study was undertaken seeking to evaluate 21 diverse services at 5 major academic research libraries. This work stands as a model for evaluation of digital libraries, through its focus on both the costs of operations and the impacts of the services that those operations provide. The data have been analyzed using both statistical methods and methods of Data Envelopment Analysis. The results of the study, which are presented in detail, serve to demonstrate that a cross-functional approach to library services is feasible. They also highlight a new measure of impact, which is a weighted logarithmic combination of the amount of time that users spend interacting with the service, combined with a Likert-scale indication of the value of that service in relation to the time expended. The measure derived, incorporating simple information obtainable from the user, together with information which is readily available in server/client logs, provides an excellent foundation for transferring these measurement principles to the Digital Library environment

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=5585,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users' or user surrogates' assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems-inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster's (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'The Influence of F. W. Lancaster on Information Science and on Libraries', das als Festschrift für F.W. Lancaster deklariert ist.

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=4150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A recent study begun at Case Western Reserve University and continued at Rutgers University compared the transcripts of 200 DIALOG searches conducted by 36 experienced searchers on real questions submitted by academic and industrial researchers. Relevance judgements by the researchers were used to give recall and precision scores to each search result. Findings included: a low degree of overlap between searches on the same question in selection of search terms or items retrieved; the more often an item was retrieved by different searchers, the more likely it was to be judged relevant; recall and precision were not necessarly inversly related; there was a significant positive impact on recall/precision from using more cycles (a sequence from selecting terms to displaying results); serious uncorrectd errors were a major problem in poor searches and proper selection of terms a key to successful searches.

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=4032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Presents selected results from a large study which observed under real-life conditions the interaction between users, intermediaries and computers before and during online searching. Concentrates on the sources of search terms and the relation between given search terms and retrieval of relevant and nonrelevant items as answers. Users provided the largest proportion of search terms (61%), followed by the thesuaurs (19%), relevance feedback (11%), and intermediary (9%). Only 4% of search terms resulted in retrieval of relevant items only; 60% retrieved relevant and nonrelevant items; 25% retrieved nonrelevant items only; and 11% retrieved nothing.

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)