Search (174 results, page 1 of 9)

0.19329357 = product of:
  0.28994036 = sum of:
    0.23654105 = weight(_text_:specialist in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23654105 = score(doc=364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04866305 = queryNorm
        0.72914284 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
    0.053399306 = product of:
      0.10679861 = sum of:
        0.10679861 = weight(_text_:librarians in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10679861 = score(doc=364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.48993918 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Conducting a literature review is an important activity for postgraduates and many undergraduates. Librarians can play an important role, directing students to digital libraries, compiling online subject reSource lists, and educating about the need to evaluate the quality of online resources. In order to conduct an effective literature search in a new area, however, in some subjects it is necessary to gain basic topic knowledge, including specialist vocabularies. Google's link-based page ranking algorithm makes this search engine an ideal tool for finding specialist topic introductory material, particularly in computer science, and so librarians should be teaching this as part of a strategic literature review approach.

0.07964751 = product of:
  0.23894252 = sum of:
    0.23894252 = weight(_text_:specialist in 1976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23894252 = score(doc=1976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04866305 = queryNorm
        0.73654544 = fieldWeight in 1976, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1976)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews the range of specialist browsing tools available to beginners for navigating the WWW. Pays particular attention to Jumpstation 2; the Webcrawler; Lycos; World Wide Web Worm; RBSE; and CUI W3

0.0683396 = product of:
  0.102509394 = sum of:
    0.08362989 = weight(_text_:specialist in 2496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08362989 = score(doc=2496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04866305 = queryNorm
        0.25779092 = fieldWeight in 2496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2496)
    0.018879505 = product of:
      0.03775901 = sum of:
        0.03775901 = weight(_text_:librarians in 2496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03775901 = score(doc=2496,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.17321965 = fieldWeight in 2496, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Will there ever be a science equivalent of Google? Two of the world's biggest science publishing and information firms seem to think that there will. They are about to compete head-to-head to create the most popular tool for searching the scientific literature. Elsevier, the Amsterdam-based publisher of more than 1,800 journals, has announced that this autumn it will launch Scopus, an online search engine covering abstracts and references from 14,000 scientific journals. Scopus will arrive as a direct competitor for the established Web of Science, owned by Thomson ISI of Philadelphia, the scientific information specialist. "Scopus will definitely be a threat to ISI," says one science publishing expert, who asked not to be named. "But ISI will not just let this happen. There will be some kind of arms race in terms of adding new features." Many researchers are already wedded to subject-specific databases of scientific information, such as PubMed, for biomedical research. But Web of Science is currently the only service to cover the full spectrum of scientific disciplines and publications. It can also generate the citation statistics that are sometimes used to measure the quality ofjournals and individual papers. ISI, which is widely used by libraries worldwide, may be hard to displace. It covers fewer than 9,000 journals, but it has been available in its present form since 1997 and includes a 60-year archive of papers. Thomson ISI says it will extend this to 105 years by the end of 2005. The company also owns the only extensive database an patent abstracts.
Elsevier cannot hope to match this coverage in the short term. The company has been able to draw an its experience of running biomedical and pharmaceutical databases, and developers began compiling a multidisciplinary index two years ago. Even so, when it launches, Scopus will index only five years of references far some journals, rising to ten years during 2005. Data an abstracts will go back further, in some cases to the mid-1960s. Because Scopus has been built from scratch, Elsevier has been able to work with librarians to develop an alternative to the Web of Science interface, which has been criticized by some users. "Users are very happy with Scopus," says Steven Gheyselinck, a librarian at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who has been testing it. Although Scopus and Web of Science are the only products aiming to cover all of science, other search engines are also under development. The Google of science could end up being Google itself the company has collaborated with nine publishers, including Nature Publishing Group, to create an engine called CrossRef Search. This service, a pilot of which appeared last month, allows users to search digital versions of all papers held by the publishers involved and returns links to articles an their websites. Unlike Web of Science and Scopus, which scan through the titles and abstracts of articles, CrossRef Search also searches the full text of papers. Many of the other 300 or so members of CrossRef - a publishers' collaboration established to allow easier linking between citations - are likely to join the service if the pilot is successful."

0.06371801 = product of:
  0.19115403 = sum of:
    0.19115403 = weight(_text_:specialist in 4537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19115403 = score(doc=4537,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04866305 = queryNorm
        0.5892364 = fieldWeight in 4537, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4537)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Briefly reviews the AltaVista and Notes search software for searching the WWW. In the case of AltaVista, Digital claims that this web crawler has been crawling the WWW at the rate of 2,5 million pages per day and already accounts for the indexing of 16 million pages and 13.000 newsgroups. Suggests that AltaVista pulls of significantly more on obscure or specialist subjects than rivals like InfoSeek and Excite. concludes with details of IBM's development of the Lotus WWW searcher designed to cope with the increasing complexity of web applications

0.058576792 = product of:
  0.08786519 = sum of:
    0.07168276 = weight(_text_:specialist in 3099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07168276 = score(doc=3099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04866305 = queryNorm
        0.22096364 = fieldWeight in 3099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3099)
    0.016182434 = product of:
      0.032364868 = sum of:
        0.032364868 = weight(_text_:librarians in 3099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032364868 = score(doc=3099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.148474 = fieldWeight in 3099, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"When Randall C. Jimerson, the president of the Society of American Archivists, heard of Google's plan to convert certain holdings at Oxford University and at some of the leading research libraries in the United States into digital files, searchable over the Web, he asked, "What are they thinking?" Mr. Jimerson had worries. Who would select the material? How would it be organized and identified to avoid mountains of excerpts taken out of context? Would Google users eventually forgo the experience of holding a book or looking at a historicaldocument? But in recent interviews, many scholars and librarians applauded the announcement by Google, the operator of the world's most popular Internet search service, to digitize some of the collections at Oxford, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, Harvard and the New York Public Library. The plan, in the words of Paul Duguid, information specialist at the University of California at Berkeley, will "blast wide open" the walls around the libraries of world-class institutions.

0.04055674 = product of:
  0.12167022 = sum of:
    0.12167022 = sum of:
      0.07551802 = weight(_text_:librarians in 3238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07551802 = score(doc=3238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.3464393 = fieldWeight in 3238, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3238)
      0.0461522 = weight(_text_:22 in 3238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0461522 = score(doc=3238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3238, 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=3238)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The increasing expansion of the Internet has made resources available to users in sometimes unmanageable abundance. To help users manage this proliferation of information, librarians have begun to add URLs to their home pages. As well, specialized search engines are being used to retrieve information from selected sources in aneffort to return pertinent results. Describes the Harvest system which has been used to develop Index Antiquus, a specialized engine, for the classics and mediaeval studies. Presents a working example of how to search Index Antiquus

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15

0.039823756 = product of:
  0.11947126 = sum of:
    0.11947126 = weight(_text_:specialist in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11947126 = score(doc=2017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04866305 = queryNorm
        0.36827272 = fieldWeight in 2017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2017)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This article is an edited version of a report commissioned by the British Library and JISC to identify how the specialist researchers of the future (those born after 1993) are likely to access and interact with digital resources in five to ten years' time. The purpose is to investigate the impact of digital transition on the information behaviour of the Google Generation and to guide library and information services to anticipate and react to any new or emerging behaviours in the most effective way. Design/methodology/approach - The study was virtually longitudinal and is based on a number of extensive reviews of related literature, survey data mining and a deep log analysis of a British Library and a JISC web site intended for younger people. Findings - The study shows that much of the impact of ICTs on the young has been overestimated. The study claims that although young people demonstrate an apparent ease and familiarity with computers, they rely heavily on search engines, view rather than read and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the web. Originality/value - The paper reports on a study that overturns the common assumption that the "Google generation" is the most web-literate.

0.034762923 = product of:
  0.104288764 = sum of:
    0.104288764 = sum of:
      0.064729735 = weight(_text_:librarians in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064729735 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.296948 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
      0.03955903 = weight(_text_:22 in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03955903 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 93, 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=93)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper is about search of photos in photo databases of agencies which sell photos over the Internet. The problem is far from the behavior of photo databases managed by librarians and also far from the corpora generally used for research purposes. The descriptions use mainly single words and it is well known that it is not the best way to have a good search. This increases the problem of semantic ambiguity. This problem of semantic ambiguity is crucial for cross-language querying. On the other hand, users are not aware of documentation techniques and use generally very simple queries but want to get precise answers. This paper gives the experience gained in a 3 year use (2006-2008) of a cross-language access to several of the main international commercial photo databases. The languages used were French, English, and German.

Date

17. 4.2012 14:25:22

0.025763277 = product of:
  0.07728983 = sum of:
    0.07728983 = product of:
      0.23186947 = sum of:
        0.23186947 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23186947 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4125659 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.

0.02317528 = product of:
  0.06952584 = sum of:
    0.06952584 = sum of:
      0.043153156 = weight(_text_:librarians in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043153156 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.19796532 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.026372686 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026372686 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04866305 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Surfing the World Wide Web used to be cool, dude, real cool. But things have gotten hot - so hot that finding something useful an the Web is no longer cool. It is suffocating Web searchers in the smoke and debris of mountain-sized lists of hits, decisions about which search engines they should use, whether they will get lost in the dizzying maze of a subject directory, use the right syntax for the search engine at hand, enter keywords that are likely to retrieve hits an the topics they have in mind, or enlist a browser that has sufficient functionality to display the most promising hits. When it comes to Web searching, in a few short years we have gone from the cool image of surfing the Web into the frying pan of searching the Web. We can turn down the heat by rethinking what Web searchers are doing and introduce some order into the chaos. Web search strategies that are tool-based-oriented to specific Web searching tools such as search en gines, subject directories, and meta search engines-have been widely promoted, and these strategies are just not working. It is time to dissect what Web searching tools expect from searchers and adjust our search strategies to these new tools. This discussion offers Web searchers help in the form of search strategies that are based an strategies that librarians have been using for a long time to search commercial information retrieval systems like Dialog, NEXIS, Wilsonline, FirstSearch, and Data-Star.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.021800179 = product of:
  0.06540053 = sum of:
    0.06540053 = product of:
      0.13080107 = sum of:
        0.13080107 = weight(_text_:librarians in 352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13080107 = score(doc=352,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.60005057 = fieldWeight in 352, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Librarians need to be the Google experts in their community since it enables librarians to be more competent in educating users. To keep up with the developments of Google the authors reviewed eleven Web sites and blogs and create a strategy for keeping up using these sites. Three are highly recommended for a keeping-up regimen. The authors also suggest that librarians either use search engine alerting services or RSS technology to deliver news feeds into a news aggregator in their keeping-up regimen.

0.021800179 = product of:
  0.06540053 = sum of:
    0.06540053 = product of:
      0.13080107 = sum of:
        0.13080107 = weight(_text_:librarians in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13080107 = score(doc=358,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.60005057 = fieldWeight in 358, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Effective Web research must include both Visible and Invisible Web resources and reference librarians have an important role to play in mediating the research process. The Google search engine is the public's tool of choice and dominates Web searching even though it accesses a limited portion of the Web. The Invisible Web is less well-known to the public and harder to access but contains a greater wealth of resources. Reference librarians should help guide people to the best solutions for their information needs: at times Google. at other times the diverse tools that access the Invisible Web.

0.018648308 = product of:
  0.05594492 = sum of:
    0.05594492 = product of:
      0.11188984 = sum of:
        0.11188984 = weight(_text_:22 in 3227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11188984 = score(doc=3227,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3227, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7. 2.1996 22:38:41

Pages

22 S

0.018648308 = product of:
  0.05594492 = sum of:
    0.05594492 = product of:
      0.11188984 = sum of:
        0.11188984 = weight(_text_:22 in 4007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11188984 = score(doc=4007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4007, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.1999 20:22:06

0.018648308 = product of:
  0.05594492 = sum of:
    0.05594492 = product of:
      0.11188984 = sum of:
        0.11188984 = weight(_text_:22 in 4009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11188984 = score(doc=4009,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4009, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.1999 21:22:59

0.017980482 = product of:
  0.053941444 = sum of:
    0.053941444 = product of:
      0.10788289 = sum of:
        0.10788289 = weight(_text_:librarians in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10788289 = score(doc=1264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.4949133 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.017799769 = product of:
  0.053399306 = sum of:
    0.053399306 = product of:
      0.10679861 = sum of:
        0.10679861 = weight(_text_:librarians in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10679861 = score(doc=3264,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.48993918 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, undertaken at the J. Otto Lottes Health Sciences Library, Missouri University at Columbia, to derive a set of evaluation criteria to assist librarians in determining the positive and negative aspects of alternative Web sites available for searching MEDLINE via the WWW. A set of searches were used systematically to compare MEDLINE Web sites, including: Avicenna; America Online; HealthGate; PubMed; Medscape; and Physicians' Online. Focuses on the principle features of the search engines used in the sites: default fields and operators; MeSH; subheadings; stopwords protected in MeSH; truncation and stemming. Describes the group processes used to arrive at the evaluation criteria and some general conclusions which will help librarians in directing their users to a particular MEDLINE site

0.017799769 = product of:
  0.053399306 = sum of:
    0.053399306 = product of:
      0.10679861 = sum of:
        0.10679861 = weight(_text_:librarians in 3999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10679861 = score(doc=3999,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.48993918 = fieldWeight in 3999, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

To use the electronic resources of the Internet effectively, reference librarians must learn to use the various search engines to their best advantage. Describes the following Web sites which provide help for librarians in improving their Internet searching skills: the Bergen County Cooperative Library System which has links to some well-known directories and search engines; the Spider's Apprentice, which provides ratings and in-depth analysis of search engines, a FAQ document useful to the beginning searcher, and an online discussion forum; ZDNet's WebSearchUser which has feature articles, reviews and tutorials; and Search Engine Watch which reports new developments in search engines. URLs for these and other resources are given

0.01758179 = product of:
  0.052745372 = sum of:
    0.052745372 = product of:
      0.105490744 = sum of:
        0.105490744 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105490744 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27.11.2005 18:04:22

0.015540253 = product of:
  0.04662076 = sum of:
    0.04662076 = product of:
      0.09324152 = sum of:
        0.09324152 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09324152 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22