Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bates, M.J."
  1. Bates, M.J.: How to use controlled vocabularies more effectively in online searching (1989) 0.04 
    0.042101383 = product of:
  0.08420277 = sum of:
    0.06576697 = weight(_text_:subject in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06576697 = score(doc=2883,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Optimal retrieval in on-line searching can be achieved through combined use of both natural language and controlled vocabularies. However, there is a large variety of types of controlled vocabulary in data bases and often more than one in a single data base. Optimal use of these vocabularies requires understanding what types of languages are involved, and taking advantage of the particular mix of vocabularies in a given data base. Examples 4 major types of indexing and classification used in data bases and puts these 4 in the context of 3 other approaches to subject access. Discusses how to evaluate a new data base for various forms of subject access.
  2. Bates, M.J.: How to use controlled vocabularies more effectively in online searching (1989) 0.04 
    0.042101383 = product of:
  0.08420277 = sum of:
    0.06576697 = weight(_text_:subject in 207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06576697 = score(doc=207,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 207, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=207)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 207, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Optimal retrieval in on-line searching can be achieved through combined use of both natural language and controlled vocabularies. However, there is a large variety of types of controlled vocabulary in data bases and often more than one in a single data base. Optimal use of these vocabularies requires understanding what types of languages are involved, and taking advantage of the particular mix of vocabularies in a given data base. Examples 4 major types of indexing and classification used in data bases and puts these 4 in the context of 3 other approaches to subject access. Discusses how to evaluate a new data base for various forms of subject access.
  3. Bates, M.J.: Indexing and access for digital libraries and the Internet : Human, database, and domain factors (1998) 0.04 
    0.042101383 = product of:
  0.08420277 = sum of:
    0.06576697 = weight(_text_:subject in 2160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06576697 = score(doc=2160,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 2160, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2160)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 2160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=2160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 2160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Discussion in the research community and among the general public regarding content indexing (especially subject indexing) and access to digital resources, especially on the Internet, has underutilized research on a variety of factors that are important in the design of such access mechanisms. Some of these factors and issues are reviewed and implications drawn for information system design in the era of electronic access. Specifically the following are discussed: Human factors: Subject searching vs. indexing, multiple terms of access, flok classification, basic level terms, and folk access; Database factors: Bradford's law, vocabulary scalability, the Resnikoff-Dolby 30:1 Rule; Domain factors: Role of domain in indexing
  4. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.03 
    0.029483322 = product of:
  0.058966644 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
    0.019105844 = product of:
      0.03821169 = sum of:
        0.03821169 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03821169 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, 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=54)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
  5. Bates, M.J.: Rethinking subject cataloging in the online environment (1989) 0.03 
    0.026573867 = product of:
  0.10629547 = sum of:
    0.10629547 = weight(_text_:subject in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10629547 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  6. Bates, M.J.: System meets user : problems in matching subject search terms (1977) 0.03 
    0.026573867 = product of:
  0.10629547 = sum of:
    0.10629547 = weight(_text_:subject in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10629547 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  7. Bates, M.J.: Factors affecting subject catalog search success (1977) 0.03 
    0.026573867 = product of:
  0.10629547 = sum of:
    0.10629547 = weight(_text_:subject in 732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10629547 = score(doc=732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=732)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  8. Bates, M.J.: Designing online catalog subject acces to meet user needs (1989) 0.03 
    0.026573867 = product of:
  0.10629547 = sum of:
    0.10629547 = weight(_text_:subject in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10629547 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  9. Bates, M.J.: Subject access in online catalogs: a design model (1986) 0.02 
    0.023252133 = product of:
  0.09300853 = sum of:
    0.09300853 = weight(_text_:subject in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09300853 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  10. Bates, M.J.: Fundamental forms of information (2006) 0.01 
    0.007880759 = product of:
  0.031523038 = sum of:
    0.031523038 = product of:
      0.063046075 = sum of:
        0.063046075 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063046075 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:15:22
  11. Bates, M.J.: Learning about the information seeking of interdisciplinary scholars and students (1996) 0.01 
    0.006368615 = product of:
  0.02547446 = sum of:
    0.02547446 = product of:
      0.05094892 = sum of:
        0.05094892 = weight(_text_:22 in 7181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05094892 = score(doc=7181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    14. 4.1997 20:22:55
  12. Mizrachi, D.; Bates, M.J.: Undergraduates' personal academic information management and the consideration of time and task-urgency (2013) 0.00 
    0.0039803847 = product of:
  0.015921539 = sum of:
    0.015921539 = product of:
      0.031843077 = sum of:
        0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031843077 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.

Years

Types

  • a 11
  • p 1

Themes