Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011812146 = product of:
  0.09449717 = sum of:
    0.09449717 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09449717 = score(doc=6184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.72590137 = fieldWeight in 6184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=6184)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.011696085 = product of:
  0.04678434 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=3649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 3649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3649)
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 3649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=3649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 3649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3649)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

F. W. Lancaster is known for his writing an the state of the art in librarylinformation science. His skill in identifying significant contributions and synthesizing literature in fields as diverse as online systems, vocabulary control, measurement and evaluation, and the paperless society have earned him esteem as a chronicler of information science. Equally deserving of repute is his own contribution to research in the discipline-his evaluation of the MEDLARS operating system. The MEDLARS study is notable for several reasons. It was the first large-scale application of retrieval experiment methodology to the evaluation of an actual operating system. As such, problems had to be faced that do not arise in laboratory-like conditions. One example is the problem of recall: how to determine, for a very large and dynamic database, the number of documents relevant to a given search request. By solving this problem and others attendant upon transferring an experimental methodology to the real world, Lancaster created a constructive procedure that could be used to improve the design and functioning of retrieval systems. The MEDLARS study is notable also for its contribution to our understanding of what constitutes a good index language and good indexing. The ideal retrieval system would be one that retrieves all and only relevant documents. The failures that occur in real operating systems, when a relevant document is not retrieved (a recall failure) or an irrelevant document is retrieved (a precision failure), can be analysed to assess the impact of various factors an the performance of the system. This is exactly what Lancaster did. He found both the MEDLARS indexing and the McSH index language to be significant factors affecting retrieval performance. The indexing, primarily because it was insufficiently exhaustive, explained a large number of recall failures. The index language, largely because of its insufficient specificity, accounted for a large number of precision failures. The purpose of identifying factors responsible for a system's failures is ultimately to improve the system. Unlike many user studies, the MEDLARS evaluation yielded recommendations that were eventually implemented.* Indexing exhaustivity was increased and the McSH index language was enriched with more specific terms and a larger entry vocabulary.

Imprint

Littleton, CO : Libraries Unlimited

0.008352448 = product of:
  0.066819586 = sum of:
    0.066819586 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066819586 = score(doc=2881,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.51328975 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Contribution to an issue on the impact of technological change on libraries and ways in which librarians are applying technology to their collections, services to users and the management of their libraries. Traces the evolution of electronic publishing from the early 60s to the present. Pays particular attention to computer conferencing, and hypermedia.

0.008268503 = product of:
  0.06614802 = sum of:
    0.06614802 = weight(_text_:libraries in 7599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06614802 = score(doc=7599,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.50813097 = fieldWeight in 7599, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7599)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Reviews the trend away from a paper based society and towards an electronic society: with the advent of computers, electronic mail, computer conferencing, electronic invisible colleges, and the application of computers to libraries and information networks, and to publishing, with the production of electronic media. Forecasts the advent of the electronic library and the electronic librarian, the decline in the use of present day libraries, technical and library services, and the enhanced and extended role of librarians in the new situation. Predicts the eventual demise of the traditional library with the exception of non research libraries but the enhanced value of the librarians as an information specialist

0.0066819587 = product of:
  0.05345567 = sum of:
    0.05345567 = weight(_text_:libraries in 7886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05345567 = score(doc=7886,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 7886, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7886)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Digital libraries are sufficiently differnt from more traditional print on paper libraries to present a new set of parameters relating to the evaluation of its use. Discusses evaluation criteria, problems and methods relevant to the digital library environment

0.006099823 = product of:
  0.048798583 = sum of:
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 3000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=3000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 3000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3000)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

An overview of levels and approaches in the evalution of knowledge-based systems is presented. There is a need for empirical studies using objective criteria in advance of completing the technical evaluation of such systems. A methodology for this type of evaluation developed for a particular knowledge-based indexing system is presented. It is suggested that the proposed study may serve as a model for the design of any evaluation in which the results of existing intellectual procedures are compared with results achieved when these procedures are aided by use of an appropriate expert system

0.00531474 = product of:
  0.04251792 = sum of:
    0.04251792 = product of:
      0.08503584 = sum of:
        0.08503584 = weight(_text_:area in 7128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08503584 = score(doc=7128,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.43551105 = fieldWeight in 7128, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This piece of research traces the evolution of guidelines and principles for the construction of information retrieval thesauri from 1959 to 1993. We conclude that the majority of the basic problems of thesaurus construction has already been identified and solved by 1967 and that Eugene Wall, more than any other individual, has profoundly influenced the entire development in this area

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=1675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 1675, 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=1675)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

A review of developments in electronic publishing over the last 25 years is followed by a report on a survey conducted, with directors of university libraries and other academic administrators, to determine attitudes toward a networked electronic approach to the publishing of research articles. A major conclusion is that academic administrators do not now consider the academic community well equipped to undertake an enterprise of this kind and would not give it high priority in the allocation of university resources

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=4015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 4015, 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=4015)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

College and research libraries. 52(1991) no.5, S.454-465

0.004091847 = product of:
  0.032734778 = sum of:
    0.032734778 = weight(_text_:libraries in 308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032734778 = score(doc=308,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2514596 = fieldWeight in 308, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=308)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 53(2002) no.4, S.321-322 (I. Fourie): "A substantial literature exists on artificial intelligence (AI) and expert systems in general, as well as in Library and Information Science (LIS). Many reports are over-confident and grossly exaggerate the power and potential of artificial intelligence (AI). This is especially true of the first phase of At, and to some extent also of the third phase that is stimulated by developments surrounding the Internet. The middle phase was mostly marked by disillusionment about the potential of Al and expert systems. The confusion around the promises made by AI and the lack of operational success, leaves managers of library and information services with the dilemma of distinguishing between worthwhile research reporting on operational projects and projects that exists only on paper or in the researchers' heads. It is very difficult to sieve between the two when working through the subject literature, and to distinguish between working technology/applications and wishful thinking. This might be one reason why working systems are sometimes ignored. According to Lancaster and Warner, library managers must also look much wider than the LIS literature to note new trends; this can, however, become a daunting task. Against this background the authors report on a study conducted with the support of the Special Libraries Association's Steven I. Goldspiel Memorial Research Grant. The objective of the study was to gain sufficient familiarity with the developments in Al and related technologies to make recommendations to the information service community on what can be applied, and what to expect in the near future. The intention therefore was to focus on systems that are actually operational, and systems that hold potential for the future. Since digital libraries seems an inevitable part of our future, applications concerning them features strongly in the final recommendations. The scope of AI in Library and Information Science depends on the interpretation of the concepts artificial intelligence and expert systems. "If a system has to `behave intelligently' (e.g. make inferences or learn from its mistakes) to qualify as having AI, few such systems exist in any application. On the other hand, if one accepts that a system exhibits AI if its does things that humans need intelligence to do, many more systems would qualify" (p. 107). One example is the field of subject indexing. The same would apply if a more relaxed definition of expert systems is applied as a system that "can help the non-expert perform some task at a level closer to that of an expert, whether or not all the essential components are in place" (p. 107). Most of the AI literature relevant to libraries falls in the field of expert systems. Lancaster and Warner identify (p. 6) expert systems as " a branch of artificial intelligence, even though very few expert systems exhibit true intelligence.""

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=4913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 4913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4913)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 57(2006) no.1, S.144-145 (H. Saggion): "... This volume is a very valuable source of information for not only students and professionals in library and information science but also for individuals and institutions involved in knowledge management and organization activities. Because of its broad coverage of the information science topic, teachers will find the contents of this book useful for courses in the areas of information technology, digital as well as traditional libraries, and information science in general."

0.0029530365 = product of:
  0.023624292 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=4014,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 4014, 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=4014)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Reports results of an evaluation of 2 expert systems designed for use in library reference services: ReferenceExpert (RE), developed by Houston University; and SourceFinder (SF), developed by Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign. The test group consisted of 60 graduate students at the initial stage of an intermediate level reference course. The evaluation involved test questions already used in an earlier study (College and research libraries 52(1991) no.5, S.454-465). Results indicated that: there was no significant difference between RE and SF students in the confidence they expressed regarding understanding of their test questions; no significant correlation was found between confidence in understanding the question and success in selecting appropriate sources; only 1/5 of the students agreed that the system they used could be considered 'intelligent'; the majority did not consider the system they used to be 'competent'; almost half agreed that the subject categories provided by the menus were too broad; a little more than half wer not satisfied with the information sources selected by their system; significantly more RE users than SF users agreed that they found the menu interface useful; and a keyword search capability was the feature most often mentioned as a needed system enhancement. Overall results indicated that current expert systems for the selection of reference sources cannot perform as well as experienced subject oriented reference librarians

0.0026845017 = product of:
  0.021476014 = sum of:
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 217, 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=217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 4.2007 10:07:51