Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.038752075 = product of:
  0.07750415 = sum of:
    0.07750415 = product of:
      0.1550083 = sum of:
        0.1550083 = weight(_text_:searching in 1327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1550083 = score(doc=1327,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.7411757 = fieldWeight in 1327, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Researchers have traditionally used bibliographic databases to search out information. Today, the full-text of resources is increasingly available for searching, and more researchers are performing full-text searches. This study compares differences in the number of articles discovered between metadata and full-text searches of the same literature cohort when searching for gene names in two biomedical literature domains. Three reviewers additionally ranked 100 articles in each domain. Significantly more articles were discovered via full-text searching; however, the precision of full-text searching also is significantly lower than that of metadata searching. Certain features of articles correlated with higher relevance ratings. A significant feature measured was the number of matches of the search term in the full-text of the article, with a larger number of matches having a statistically significant higher usefulness (i.e., relevance) rating. By using the number of hits of the search term in the full-text to rank the importance of the article, performance of full-text searching was improved so that both recall and precision were as good as or better than that for metadata searching. This suggests that full-text searching alone may be sufficient, and that metadata searching as a surrogate is not necessary.

0.03467066 = product of:
  0.06934132 = sum of:
    0.06934132 = product of:
      0.13868263 = sum of:
        0.13868263 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13868263 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.76602525 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 14:19:22

0.019828727 = product of:
  0.039657455 = sum of:
    0.039657455 = product of:
      0.07931491 = sum of:
        0.07931491 = weight(_text_:searching in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07931491 = score(doc=3449,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As new technologies and information delivery systems emerge, the way in which individuals search for information to support research, teaching, and creative activities is changing. To understand different aspects of researchers' information-seeking behavior, this article surveyed 2,063 academic researchers in natural science, engineering, and medical science from five research universities in the United States. A Web-based, in-depth questionnaire was designed to quantify researchers' information searching, information use, and information storage behaviors. Descriptive statistics are reported. Additionally, analysis of results is broken out by institutions to compare differences among universities. Significant findings are reported, with the biggest changes because of increased utilization of electronic methods for searching, sharing, and storing scholarly content, as well as for utilizing library services. Generally speaking, researchers in the five universities had similar information-seeking behavior, with small differences because of varying academic unit structures and myriad library services provided at the individual institutions.

0.01652394 = product of:
  0.03304788 = sum of:
    0.03304788 = product of:
      0.06609576 = sum of:
        0.06609576 = weight(_text_:searching in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06609576 = score(doc=87,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.3160384 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.014021028 = product of:
  0.028042056 = sum of:
    0.028042056 = product of:
      0.05608411 = sum of:
        0.05608411 = weight(_text_:searching in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05608411 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The information seeking behavior of academic scientists is being transformed by the availability of electronic resources for searching, retrieving, and reading scholarly materials. A census survey was conducted of academic science researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to capture their current information seeking behavior. Nine hundred two subjects (26%) completed responses to a 15-minute Web-based survey. The survey questions were designed to quantify the transition to electronic communications and how this affects different aspects of information seeking. Significant changes in information seeking behavior were found, including increased reliance on web based resources, fewer visits to the library, and almost entirely electronic communication of information. The results can guide libraries and other information service organizations as they adapt to meet the needs of today's information searchers. Simple descriptive statistics are reported for the individual questions. Additionally, analysis of results is broken out by basic science and medical science departments. The survey tool and protocol used in this study have been adopted for use in a nationwide survey of the information seeking behavior of academic scientists.

0.012257928 = product of:
  0.024515856 = sum of:
    0.024515856 = product of:
      0.049031712 = sum of:
        0.049031712 = weight(_text_:22 in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049031712 = score(doc=5264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5264, 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=5264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 14:41:40