Search (106 results, page 1 of 6)

0.110154286 = product of:
  0.14687239 = sum of:
    0.037019525 = weight(_text_:r in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037019525 = score(doc=141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
    0.07437449 = weight(_text_:et in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07437449 = score(doc=141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.36287874 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
    0.035478372 = product of:
      0.070956744 = sum of:
        0.070956744 = weight(_text_:al in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070956744 = score(doc=141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.35444298 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

0.08375697 = product of:
  0.16751394 = sum of:
    0.07361166 = weight(_text_:et in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07361166 = score(doc=296,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.35915685 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
    0.09390228 = sum of:
      0.07022897 = weight(_text_:al in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07022897 = score(doc=296,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043682147 = queryNorm
          0.3508076 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.023673313 = weight(_text_:22 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023673313 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15296744 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043682147 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Previous empirical studies of searcher behaviour have drawn attention to a wide variety of factors that affect performance; for instance, the display of retrieved results can alter search strategies (Allen 1991, 1994), the information need type influences search behaviour, (Elkerton et al 1984, Marchionini 1995); while the task complexity, reflected in the information need can affect user's search behaviour (Large et al 1994). Furthermore, information source selection (Bassilli 1977), and the user's model of the system and domain impact on the search process (Michel 1994); while motivation (Solomon 1993, Jacobsen et al 1992) and the importance of the information need (Wendt 1969) also influence search duration and the effort a user will employ. Rouse and Rouse (1984) in a review of empirical studies, summarise a wide variety of variables that can effect searching behaviour, including payoff, costs of searching, resource available, amount of information sought, characteristics of the data and conflicts between documents. It appears that user behaviour is inconsistent in the search strategies adopted even for the same search need and system (Davidson 1977, Iivonen 1995). Theories of searcher behaviour have been proposed that provide explanations of aspects of end-user behaviour, such as the evolution of the user's information need and the problems of articulating a query, [Bates (1979, 1989), Markey and Atherton 1978], effective search strategies in browsing and goal directed searches [Marchionini 1995, Belkin (1987, 1993)], the linguistic problem of matching search terms with indexing terms or content of target documents through an expert intermediary (Ingwersen 1982) or cognitive aspects of IR (Kulthau 1984, Ingwersen 1996).

Date

22. 3.2002 9:54:13

0.06669983 = product of:
  0.13339967 = sum of:
    0.053124636 = weight(_text_:et in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053124636 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
    0.08027503 = sum of:
      0.05068339 = weight(_text_:al in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05068339 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043682147 = queryNorm
          0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.02959164 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02959164 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15296744 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043682147 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.06294778 = product of:
  0.12589556 = sum of:
    0.10518141 = weight(_text_:et in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10518141 = score(doc=7914,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.51318806 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
    0.020714147 = product of:
      0.041428294 = sum of:
        0.041428294 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041428294 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15296744 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The library of the Cité des Sciences et de l'industrie attracts 4.000 visitors daily of whom 25% consult the GEAC system OPAC. Describes a 1992 survey consisting of online questions followed by an interview. The questionnaires were adapted from ones used in the UK and utilised OLIVE (Online Interactive Validation and Evaluation). While difficulties arose from users' inconsistency in their replies and failures to answer questions, it has become clear that subject access is unsatisfactory, sometimes because of mistyping by the searcher but also because of the vocabulary problems and lack of guidance in search strategies

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.4, S.68-71

0.05548408 = product of:
  0.11096816 = sum of:
    0.07512958 = weight(_text_:et in 1861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07512958 = score(doc=1861,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.3665629 = fieldWeight in 1861, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1861)
    0.03583857 = product of:
      0.07167714 = sum of:
        0.07167714 = weight(_text_:al in 1861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07167714 = score(doc=1861,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.3580415 = fieldWeight in 1861, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article surveys the use of eye tracking in investigations of online search. Three eye tracking experiments that we undertook are discussed and compared to additional work in this area, revealing recurring behaviors and trends. The first two studies are described in greater detail in Granka, Joachims, & Gay (2004), Lorigo et al. (2006), and Pan et al. (2007), and the third study is described for the first time in this article. These studies reveal how users view the ranked results on a search engine results page (SERP), the relationship between the search result abstracts viewed and those clicked on, and whether gender, search task, or search engine influence these behaviors. In addition, we discuss a key challenge that arose in all three studies that applies to the use of eye tracking in studying online behaviors which is due to the limited support for analyzing scanpaths, or sequences of eye fixations. To meet this challenge, we present a preliminary approach that involves a graphical visualization to compare a path with a group of paths. We conclude by summarizing our findings and discussing future work in further understanding online search behavior with the help of eye tracking.

0.054926433 = product of:
  0.109852865 = sum of:
    0.07437449 = weight(_text_:et in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07437449 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.36287874 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
    0.035478372 = product of:
      0.070956744 = sum of:
        0.070956744 = weight(_text_:al in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070956744 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.35444298 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

s.a. Wiberley et al. in mehreren Beiträgen

0.04774029 = product of:
  0.09548058 = sum of:
    0.031731024 = weight(_text_:r in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031731024 = score(doc=5233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
    0.06374956 = weight(_text_:et in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06374956 = score(doc=5233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Ellis, et alia, now provide part five of their study on mediated searching which is treated separately here because of the presence of additional authors. The data source remains cases collected from 198 individuals, 87 in Texas and 111 in Sheffield in the U.K. but the focus here is on seeker/intermediary interaction utilizing the Saracevic triadic IR model, and the method is the analysis of discourse. While the pre-search interview stressed problem definition, interaction during the search in terms of relevance and magnitude continued to develop the problem statement. The user and intermediary focused on search tactics, review and relevance, while the intermediary interaction with the system was comprised of terminology and answers. The interaction clearly affected the search process. Users and intermediaries considered the process effective and users felt the intermediary increased their overall satisfaction.

0.047079798 = product of:
  0.094159596 = sum of:
    0.06374956 = weight(_text_:et in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06374956 = score(doc=1558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
    0.030410035 = product of:
      0.06082007 = sum of:
        0.06082007 = weight(_text_:al in 1558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06082007 = score(doc=1558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.30380827 = fieldWeight in 1558, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1558)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Proceedings of the 2nd British-Nordic Conference on Library and Information Studies, Edinburgh, 1997. Organized by the British Association for Information and Library Education (BAILER). Ed.: Micheline Beaulieu et al

0.039233167 = product of:
  0.07846633 = sum of:
    0.053124636 = weight(_text_:et in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053124636 = score(doc=279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
    0.025341695 = product of:
      0.05068339 = sum of:
        0.05068339 = weight(_text_:al in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05068339 = score(doc=279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Recently, the importance of application of multiple, qualitative methods has been emphasised in the field of information seeking and retrieval research. (See Fidel 1993; Vakkari 1997). One of the earliest and most ambitious attempts to apply multiple methods was the research project on information needs and information services in local authority social services departments. (Wilson & Streatfield 1977; Wilson, et al., 1979; Wilson 1981). In studies on information needs and seeking qualitative methods have gained a leading position in the 1990's (Vakkari 1997: 451). Indisputably, this is the case when looking at recent information needs, seeking and use research carried out by Algon (1997), Ellen (1998), Barry (1995), Byström (1997), Iivonen (1996), Kirk (1997), Kuhlthau (1993), Solomon (1997) and Sonnenwald and Lievrouw (1996). Furthermore, though the approach of the study is qualitative the application of quantitative techniques is not necessarily excluded. In methodological literature attention is paid to integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques. These methods are not opposite but they complement to each other. In a qualitative study various methods can be combined. Triangulation can be seen in two ways: firstly, to ascertain the validity of research; secondly, to employ the methods that are appropriate to the subject investigated. Application of triangulation in the former way aims at the full, 'objective' picture of the subject studied, while the picture obtained in the latter way is like a kaleidoscope. Thus the ultimate reason for triangulating is to gain deeper understanding of the phenomenon studied.

0.03299067 = product of:
  0.06598134 = sum of:
    0.04230803 = weight(_text_:r in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04230803 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
    0.023673313 = product of:
      0.047346625 = sum of:
        0.047346625 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047346625 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15296744 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.031386532 = product of:
  0.062773064 = sum of:
    0.042499706 = weight(_text_:et in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042499706 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
    0.020273356 = product of:
      0.04054671 = sum of:
        0.04054671 = weight(_text_:al in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04054671 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Household Information Systems (HIS) project in Queen Margaret College was funded to explore the use of new media in a group of Edinburgh households (Davenport & Higgins, 1995). One of the motivations of the HIS 'programme' was to find a suitable theoretical and/or exploratory framework, which takes account of multiple aspects of behaviour surrounding technologies, and thus avoids assumptions about their role in information-seeking or other isolated activities. A focus on single activities would occlude knowledge of other motivations: bonding, killing time, defining boundaries. In Phase One, `information management' rather than `information seeking' was used as a conceptual framework, embracing work on the `life cycle' of ICTs as illustrated by Kopytoffs `biography of things' approach (1986), Johnson's cultural circuit (1986), research on households as micro-organisations by McCrone and his colleagues (1994), and work by Silverstone and others on ICTs in the home as tools for internal and external adaptation (Silverstone, 1994, Silverstone et al 1994). The `management' framework has been productive - Phase One allowed us to identify patterns of ICT acquisition and deployment in the home, and, more interestingly, structures of appropriation which reflect rules, roles and responsibilities in individual households. These constitute what may be called a `reproduction lattice' (adapting terminology used by Kling (1987) in his analysis of the `web of computing' in organisations), a structure which captures the political and cultural economy of a household. Phase One's findings are consistent with those of other researchers working in the area of domestic consumption of ICTs but a major limitation of the work is the homogeneous nature of the respondents. Among our Edinburgh 'household managers', internal culture was a more compelling explanation for use than technical functionality.

0.031386532 = product of:
  0.062773064 = sum of:
    0.042499706 = weight(_text_:et in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042499706 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
    0.020273356 = product of:
      0.04054671 = sum of:
        0.04054671 = weight(_text_:al in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04054671 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20019227 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Thesauri have been important information and knowledge organisation tools for more than three decades. The recent emergence and phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have yet been carried out to evaluate how end-users, for whom all these efforts are ostensibly made, interact with and make use of thesauri for query building and expansion. The present paper reports a pilot study carried out to determine the extent to which a thesaurus-enhanced search interface to a web-based database aided end-users in their selection of search terms. The study also investigated the ways in which users interacted with the thesaurus structure, terms, and interface. Thesaurusbased searching and browsing behaviours adopted by users while interacting with the thesaurus-enhanced search interface were also examined. 1. Introduction The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a broad range of applications for knowledge structures in general and thesauri in particular. A number of researchers have predicted that thesauri will increasingly be used in retrieval rather than for indexing (Milstead, 1998; Aitchison et al., 1997) and that their application in information retrieval systems will become more diverse due to the growth of fulltext databases accessed over the Internet (Williamson, 2000). Some researchers have emphasised the need for tailoring the structure and content of thesauri as tools for end-user searching (Bates, 1986; Strong and Drott, 1986; Anderson and Rowley, 1991; Lopez-Huertas, 1997) while others have suggested thesaurus-enhanced user interfaces to support query formulation and expansion (Pollitt et.al., 1994; Jones et.al., 1995; Beaulieu, 1997). The recent phenomenal growth of the World Wide Web has created new opportunities to introduce thesauri as information search and retrieval aids to end user communities. While the number of web-based and hypertextual thesauri continues to grow, few investigations have been carried out to evaluate the ways in which end-users interact with and make use of online thesauri for query building and expansion. The work reported here expands an a pilot study (Shiri and Revie, 2001) carried out to investigate user - thesaurus interaction in the domains of biology and veterinary medicine.

0.028866835 = product of:
  0.05773367 = sum of:
    0.037019525 = weight(_text_:r in 6966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037019525 = score(doc=6966,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 6966, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6966)
    0.020714147 = product of:
      0.041428294 = sum of:
        0.041428294 = weight(_text_:22 in 6966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041428294 = score(doc=6966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15296744 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6966, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.026562318 = product of:
  0.10624927 = sum of:
    0.10624927 = weight(_text_:et in 6364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10624927 = score(doc=6364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.5183982 = fieldWeight in 6364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6364)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.026295353 = product of:
  0.10518141 = sum of:
    0.10518141 = weight(_text_:et in 6233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10518141 = score(doc=6233,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20495686 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.51318806 = fieldWeight in 6233, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6233)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An exploratory research study on OPACs was done within the framework of the French PARINFO program by four different teams: ENSSIB-CERSI, City Univ. of London, Médiathèque of the Cité des Sciences et de l'industrie and a firm GSI-ERLI. During the month of June 1992, 650 individual searches on four terminals were collected. The sessions were automatically recorded, accompanied by two online questionnaires, a pre-search and a post-search questionnaire. Some questions were asked orally by an interviewer and the answers noted. The article analyses the researches perceived by user as difficult or impossible. Some examples of the difficulties are given

0.024743004 = product of:
  0.049486008 = sum of:
    0.031731024 = weight(_text_:r in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031731024 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
    0.017754983 = product of:
      0.035509966 = sum of:
        0.035509966 = weight(_text_:22 in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035509966 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15296744 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043682147 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 917, 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=917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.021154014 = product of:
  0.08461606 = sum of:
    0.08461606 = weight(_text_:r in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08461606 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.5851765 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Type

r

0.021154014 = product of:
  0.08461606 = sum of:
    0.08461606 = weight(_text_:r in 2993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08461606 = score(doc=2993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.5851765 = fieldWeight in 2993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2993)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.021154014 = product of:
  0.08461606 = sum of:
    0.08461606 = weight(_text_:r in 3720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08461606 = score(doc=3720,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.5851765 = fieldWeight in 3720, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3720)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.021154014 = product of:
  0.08461606 = sum of:
    0.08461606 = weight(_text_:r in 3907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08461606 = score(doc=3907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1445992 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043682147 = queryNorm
        0.5851765 = fieldWeight in 3907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3907)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Type

r