Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009024833 = product of:
  0.036099333 = sum of:
    0.023614356 = weight(_text_:of in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023614356 = score(doc=5128,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
    0.012484977 = product of:
      0.024969954 = sum of:
        0.024969954 = weight(_text_:on in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024969954 = score(doc=5128,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Identifies 6 types of searches on the basis of paudsing behaviour by using cluster analysis. The 6 types of search were highly associated with search fleuncy and the construction of a mental model. Examines learning during multiple searches on the basis of the 6 types. Finds that searchers gain more experience, increase their searching proficiency and become more fluent at searching while online. The changes of search level in multiple searches showed that most searchers moved towards greater fleuncy

Source

Bulletin of library and information science. 1996, no.16, S.7-20

0.006713625 = product of:
  0.0268545 = sum of:
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=153,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 153, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=153)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 153, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=153)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Uses an information processing approach to analyse the behaviour of end users in searching online bibliographic databases, with particular emphasis on errors made. Following instruction in online searching, 41 students and 3 faculty end users conducted 79 subject searches. Analysis of search transcripts identified 119 reasons for errors. Errors occured most frequently in connection with functions, moves, and elements of 'create and develop sets' and 'display and print records'. Surprisingly, the results do not indicate that end users make errors less frequently as they gain more experience and practice, although syntax-related errors do decrease with time

Source

Bulletin of the Library Association of China. 1995, no.54, Jun., S.33-47

0.0057545356 = product of:
  0.023018142 = sum of:
    0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016396983 = score(doc=1075,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This research used an information processing approach to analyze the pausal behavior of end-users. It is based on viewing the search as a series of actions and pauses (rests). The end-users are 41 students and 3 faculty. After instructions, subjects searched through the semester, doing 79 searches. This study identified reasons for pausing, location of pauses, hesitation rate and pausal behavior changes over time. This study confirms that the searchers pauses less frequently and for shorter periods as they progressed through searches with more experience and practice, searchers moved more smoothly online, and the hesitation rate decreased over time. Over a series of searches or cycles within long searches, searchers gradually began to chunk more information between pauses. However, the duration of pauses do not vary significantly over time.

0.002761151 = product of:
  0.022089208 = sum of:
    0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022089208 = score(doc=2885,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article attempts to verify the hypothesis of the document presentation order by an empirical, two-stage experiment. It aims to identify the relationship between number of documents judged and order effect. The results indicate that significant order effect takes place when 15 and 30 documents are presented. Sets with 45 and 60 documents still reveal the order effect. However, subjects are not influenced by order of presentation when the set of documents has 5 and 75 members, respectively.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.970-979