Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028887425 = product of:
  0.05777485 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=2726,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

Source

Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.6, S.1136-1150

0.015519011 = product of:
  0.062076043 = sum of:
    0.062076043 = weight(_text_:data in 2554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062076043 = score(doc=2554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 2554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2554)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Linked data and user interaction: the road ahead. Eds.: Cervone, H.F. u. L.G. Svensson

0.012802532 = product of:
  0.051210128 = sum of:
    0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051210128 = score(doc=5128,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The article is a researcher's eye view of the value of the library catalog not only as a database to be searched for surrogates of objects of study, but as a corpus of text that can be analyzed in its own right, or incorporated within the researcher's own research database. Barriers are identified in the ways in which catalog data can be output and the technical skills researchers currently need to download, ingest, and manipulate data. Research tools and datasets created by, or in collaboration with, the library community are identified.

0.009144665 = product of:
  0.03657866 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usability of the user interface to an online catalogue and to explore how user assessment of both system usability and functionality can provide recommendations for the improved design. Design/methodology/approach - Drawing on previous studies, the usability testing used a mixture of search tasks, interviews and a structured focus group. Representative users completed tasks designed to test the system's features and a "think aloud" protocol collected data about the users' responses when using the system and on its perceived functionality. Findings - The analysis of the data on users' evaluation, preferences and expectations by a set of usability attributes enabled recommendations to be made with respect to key areas of the system functionality. Practical implications - The usability study helped to improve the "look and feel" of the interface and demonstrates how the user expectation of what constitutes a supported experience can help make recommendations for the design of a system that is both usable and useful. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates the benefits of using a mixture of approaches to test system usability and to gain a better understanding of usability from the perspective of the system's users, their expectations and perceived usefulness of the system.

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 2444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=2444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2444)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Seit Jahrhunderten produzieren Bibliotheken mit großem Aufwand Metadaten zu ihren Beständen - Katalogdaten. Lange Zeit waren diese für spezielle Zwecke produzierten Informationen ausschließlich in Bibliothekskatalogen auffindbar und konnten von Anderen nicht nachgenutzt werden. Diese Situation ändert sich momentan durch die Freigabe von Katalogdaten und anderen von Bibliotheken produzierten Daten als linked open data (LOD). In diesem Beitrag wird nach einer allgemeinen Einführung in das Thema LOD erläutert, welche Gründe es für die Freigabe von Bibliotheksdaten gibt und welche technischen, rechtlichen und inhaltlichen Anforderungen die Daten dafür erfüllen müssen. Im Folgenden wird dargestellt, welche Nutzungsmöglichkeiten sich inner- und außerhalb von Bibliotheken für deren Katalogdaten, kontrollierte Vokabulare und Nutzungsdaten ergeben. Anhand aktueller Projekte aus dem Bibliotheksumfeld werden Potenziale und Probleme der Datenfreigabe erläutert.

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.

0.008959906 = product of:
  0.035839625 = sum of:
    0.035839625 = weight(_text_:data in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035839625 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24204408 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Will there be a library catalogue in the future and, if so, what will it look like? In the last 25 years, the library catalogue has undergone an evolution, from card catalogues to OPACs, discovery systems and even linked data applications making library bibliographic data accessible on the web. At the same time, users expectations of what catalogues will be able to offer in the way of discovery have never been higher. This groundbreaking edited collection brings together some of the foremost international cataloguing practitioners and thought leaders, including Lorcan Dempsey, Emmanuelle Bermès, Marshall Breeding and Karen Calhoun, to provide an overview of the current state of the art of the library catalogue and look ahead to see what the library catalogue might become. Practical projects and cutting edge concepts are showcased in discussions of linked data and the Semantic Web, user expectations and needs, bibliographic control, the FRBRization of the catalogue, innovations in search and retrieval, next-generation discovery products and mobile catalogues.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=87,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the summer of 2008 all University of North Carolina libraries switched from a traditional library catalog interface supporting text-based searching (TextOnly) to a text and facet-based interface (TextFacet) to improve users' search experiences. This study seeks to understand the differences between these two interfaces and how they affect the search experience of the novice user. In this study, 40 participants were asked to search for resources using both interfaces. Their search times and accuracy were measured across three types of search tasks (known, partially known, and exploratory). After completing the searches, they were asked a series of questions about their experiences. The data were analyzed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in both search interfaces. Thirty-six out of 40 participants preferred the TextFacet interface to the TextOnly interface. Using three dependent variables-time, accuracy, and rating-the two interfaces were compared and interactions were tested with the three task types. Search times for the TextFacet were shorter and participants preferred the TextFacet search interface over the TextOnly search interface. Performances across the three task types were different in terms of search time. The partially known and exploratory task types showed similar distributions for rating and accuracy. These distributions were distinctly different from the known task type. The results of this study may assist libraries in developing improved library catalog search interfaces that utilize facets as well as text searching.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Subject access to bibliographic data supported by knowledge organization systems, such as subject headings and classification, plays an important role in ensuring the quality of library catalogues. It is generally acknowledged that users have a strong affinity to subject browsing and searching and are inclined tofollow meaningful links between resources. Research studies, however, show that library OPACs are not designed to support or make good use of subject indexes and their underlying semantic structure. A project entitled OPAC semantici was initiated in 2003 by a number of Italian subject specialists and the Italian "Research Group on Subject Indexing" (GRIS) with a goal to analyse and evaluate subject access in Italian library catalogues through a survey of 150 OPACs. Applying the same methodology, a follow-up survey to assess whether any improvement had taken place was conducted five years later, in spring 2008. Analysis of these two surveys indicated that there was a slight improvement. The authors discuss the results of these two surveys, analyse the problems in subject searching in OPACs and explain the recommendations for subject searching enhancement put forward by GRIS. Using the example of Italian OPACs, the authors will attempt to outline some requirements for a subject searching interface and explain how this can be achieved through authority control.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 5148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=5148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 5148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5148)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Documents in digital and paper libraries may be arranged, based on their topics, in order to facilitate browsing. It may seem intuitively obvious that ordering documents by their subject should improve browsing performance; the results presented in this article suggest that ordering library materials by their Gray code values and through using links consistent with the small world model of document relationships is consistent with improving browsing performance. Below, library circulation data, including ordering with Library of Congress Classification numbers and Library of Congress Subject Headings, are used to provide information useful in generating user-centered document arrangements, as well as user-independent arrangements. Documents may be linearly arranged so they can be placed in a line by topic, such as on a library shelf, or in a list on a computer display. Crossover links, jumps between a document and another document to which it is not adjacent, can be used in library databases to allow additional paths that one might take when browsing. The improvement that is obtained with different combinations of document orderings and different crossovers is examined and applications suggested.

0.0051730038 = product of:
  0.020692015 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 1799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=1799,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 1799, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1799)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: Introduction -- Focusing on user needs :new ways of subject access in Czechia -- Subject analysis and indexing :an "Italian version" of the analytico-synthetic model -- Subject search in Italian OPACs :an opportunity in waiting? -- Semiautomatic merging of two universal thesauri :the case of Estonia -- 20 years SWD :German subject authority data prepared for the future -- Mixed translations of the DDC :design, usability, and implications for knowledge organization in multilingual environments -- Animals belonging to the emperor :enabling viewpoint warrant in classification -- Dewey in Sweden :leaving SAB after 87 years -- Enhancing information services using machine-to-machine terminology services -- Social bookmarking and subject indexing -- Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library -- The Nuovo Soggettario Thesaurus :structural features and web application projects -- Jzyk Hasel Przedmiotowych Biblioteki Narodowej (National Library of Poland Subject Headings) :from card catalogs to Digital Library :some questions about the future of a Local Subject Heading Systems in the changing world of information retrieval -- FAST headings as tags for WorldCat

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=1467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1467, 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=1467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 1709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=1709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1709, 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=1709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

4. 2.2015 9:22:39

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0023791753 = product of:
  0.009516701 = sum of:
    0.009516701 = product of:
      0.019033402 = sum of:
        0.019033402 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019033402 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22