Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0124211805 = product of:
  0.024842361 = sum of:
    0.024842361 = product of:
      0.049684722 = sum of:
        0.049684722 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049684722 = score(doc=1503,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 1503, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1503)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 11(1992), S.91-104

0.0108685335 = product of:
  0.021737067 = sum of:
    0.021737067 = product of:
      0.043474134 = sum of:
        0.043474134 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043474134 = score(doc=6742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 6742, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 15(1996) no.3, S.135-155

0.010585929 = product of:
  0.021171859 = sum of:
    0.021171859 = product of:
      0.042343717 = sum of:
        0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042343717 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.007763238 = product of:
  0.015526476 = sum of:
    0.015526476 = product of:
      0.031052953 = sum of:
        0.031052953 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031052953 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes the findings of a research project that tested a new subject-access design in an experimental online catalog that had a wide range of subject-searching capabilities and search trees to govern the system's selection of searching capabilities in response to user queries. Library users at 2 academic libraries searched this experimental catalog for topics of their own choosing, judges the usefulness of retrieved titles, and answered post-search questions about their searching experiences. Mixed results from a quantitative analysis (i.e., precision scores) were supplemented with the more conclusive results from a qualitative analysis (i.e., failure analysis). Overall, analyses demonstrated that the new subject-access design that featured search trees was more effective in selecting a subject-searching approach that would prooduce useful information for the subjects users seek than users would select on their own. The qualitative analysis was especially helpful in providing recommendations for improving specific subject-searching approaches to increase their effenciency, increase user perseverance, and encourage browsing. It also suggested enhancements to the new subject-searching design to enable systems to respond to the wide variety of user queries for subjects

0.007763238 = product of:
  0.015526476 = sum of:
    0.015526476 = product of:
      0.031052953 = sum of:
        0.031052953 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031052953 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 separate but related projects to study the influence of spelling errors (misspellings), made by searchers, on the subject searching of online catalogues and to suggest ways of improving error detection systems to handle the errors that they detect. This involved the categorization of user queries for subjects that were extracted from the online catalogue transaction logs of 4 USA university libraries. The research questions considered: the prevalence of misspellings in user queries for subjects; and how users respond to online catalogues that detect possible spelling errors in their subject queries. Less than 6% of user queries that match the catalogue's controlled and free text terms were found to contain spelling errors. While the majority of users corrected misspelled query words, a sizable proportion made an action that was even more detrimental than the original misspelling. Concludes with 3 recommended improvements: online catalogues should be equipped with search trees to place the burden of selecting a subject the system instead of the user; systems should be equipped with automatic spelling checking routines that inform users of possibly misspelled words; and online catalogues should be enhanced with tools and techniques to distinguish between queries that fail due to misspellings and correction failures. Cautions that spelling is not a serious problem but can seriously hinder the most routine subject search

0.007057287 = product of:
  0.014114574 = sum of:
    0.014114574 = product of:
      0.028229147 = sum of:
        0.028229147 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028229147 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05