Search (269 results, page 1 of 14)

0.074650854 = product of:
  0.11197628 = sum of:
    0.036608502 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036608502 = score(doc=189,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 189, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=189)
    0.07536778 = sum of:
      0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040675674 = score(doc=189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 189, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=189)
      0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034692105 = score(doc=189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 189, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=189)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Almost 30 years ago, Taylor (1968) postulated that each information need moves along a continuum from the visceral need through the compromised need. The current study examines the final transition in this continuum: from formalized need (expressed in an explicit verbal statement) to compromised need (represented in the language of the retrieval system). This transition is primarily concerned with vocabulary: the searcher attempts to translate an explicit statement of need into a search term (or terms) that can be interpreted by the retrieval system. A few studies have empirically examined the match between the end-user searcher's formalized need and the compromised need (i.e., search terms). Markey (1984) compared the searcher's expressed topic (the formalized need, expressed in just a few words) and the search terms (the compromised need), and then went on to compare the search terms with the library catalog terms available for subject searching. She found that the search term matched or was a partial form of the expressed topic in 71% of the searches, and that over 75% of these searches matched a catalog term. Allen (1991) examined the relationship between logical reasoning ability and selection of search terms. He asked college students to read a magazine article (which could be seen as a very rich statement of the formalized need) and then to perform a search for articles on the same topic (expressing the compromised need).

Date

22. 3.2002 8:54:11

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.05755153 = product of:
  0.08632729 = sum of:
    0.058573607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 99) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058573607 = score(doc=99,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 99, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=99)
    0.027753685 = product of:
      0.05550737 = sum of:
        0.05550737 = weight(_text_:22 in 99) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05550737 = score(doc=99,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 99, 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=99)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 2.1999 13:19:44

Source

Information retrieval and library automation. 33(1998) no.8, S.1-3

0.054002084 = product of:
  0.08100312 = sum of:
    0.020708898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020708898 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.060294222 = sum of:
      0.032540537 = weight(_text_:conference in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032540537 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.1675761 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.027753685 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027753685 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 286, 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=286)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper highlights some of the significant findings from author's PhD: "Factors affecting the end-use of electronic databases in public libraries." Public libraries have a wide range of different types of users who, unlike academic or special library users, are not necessarily information-trained (see Coles, 1998). Whereas the academic, special library user may have specific information needs that can be met by electronic sources, public library users do not necessarily have such specific information needs that can easily be identified and met. Most user surveys have tended to concentrate on the searching and retrieval aspect of information seeking behaviour, whereas this study's user survey focused more on how people perceived and related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). It was not how people searched a particular electronic source, in this case CD-ROM, that was of prime interest but rather whether or not people actually used them at all and the reasons why people did or did not use electronic media. There were several reasons the study looked at CD-ROM specifically. Firstly, CD-ROM is a well established technology, most people should be familiar with CD-ROM/multimedia. Secondly, CD-ROM was, at the start of the study, the only open access electronic media widely available in public libraries. As well as examining why public library users chose to use electronic sources, the paper looks at the types of CD-ROM databases used both in the library and in general Also examined are what sort of searches users carried out. Where appropriate some of the problems inherent in studying end-users in public libraries and the difficulty in getting reliable data, are discussed. Several methods were used to collect the data. I wished to avoid limiting research to a small sample of library sites, the aim was to be as broad in scope as possible. There were two main groups of people 1 wished to look at: non-users as well as CD-ROM users

Date

22. 3.2002 8:51:28

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.04035003 = product of:
  0.060525045 = sum of:
    0.03624057 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03624057 = score(doc=2304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
    0.024284473 = product of:
      0.048568945 = sum of:
        0.048568945 = weight(_text_:22 in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048568945 = score(doc=2304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2304, 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=2304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports on the results of a transaction analysis and user survey, evaluating a pilot system for computerized community information in a public library, based on the GDIS system (Gemeenschaps Informatie Documentair System). The non hierarchical and global approach to the integrated database proved to be useful for novice users. Out of many parameters only frequency of use correlates with retrieval success. The online questionnaire proved to be worthwhile although restricted in scope. The logbook transaction analysis yielded a rich amount of useful management information for the systems managers. The user survey yielded a rich set of data on which to perform statistical analyses according to social science practice, from which some interesting relations could be detected

Date

23.10.1995 19:22:11

0.04019615 = product of:
  0.120588444 = sum of:
    0.120588444 = sum of:
      0.065081075 = weight(_text_:conference in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.065081075 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.3351522 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
      0.05550737 = weight(_text_:22 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05550737 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 678, 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=678)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Community networks have existed since the 1970s when Community Memory in Berkeley, Californis, installed terminals in public places for people to read and post material of all sorts on a centralised time sharing system. Community Memory was the first known community access network. Several foundations and government agencies have funded community networks, known as freenets. Discusses the freenet movement; library involvement; the Apple Library of Tomorrow and the Morino Foundation conference on community networks and how to keep in touch with community network developments

Source

Library journal. 119(1994) no.11, S.22-24

0.03361143 = product of:
  0.050417144 = sum of:
    0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025886122 = score(doc=4720,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4720, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4720)
    0.024531022 = product of:
      0.049062043 = sum of:
        0.049062043 = weight(_text_:22 in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049062043 = score(doc=4720,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4720, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article characterises the questioning behaviour in reference interviews preceding delegated online searches of bibliographic databases and relates it to questioning behaviour in other types of interviews/settings. With one exception, the unit of analysis is the question (N=610), not the interview. The author uses A.C. Graesser's typology of questions to analyse type of question and M.D. White's typology of information categories to determine the question's content objective; this is the first application of Graesser's typology to interview questions in any setting. Graesser's categories allow for a more subtle understanding of the kind of information need underlying a question. Comparisons are made between questions asked by the information specialist and those asked by the client. Findings show that the information specialist dominates the interview, about half the questions were verification questions and about 22% were judgemental questions or requests; all but four types of questions from Graesser's categories appeared in the interviews, but no new question types were discovered. Clients often phrase questions as requests. In content, both clients and information specialists focus on the subject and service requested, but the clients ask also about search strategy and output features. Both parties ask predominantly short-answer questions. Results are related to interface design for retrieval systems.

Date

2.12.2005 14:48:22

0.03349825 = product of:
  0.050247375 = sum of:
    0.038044672 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038044672 = score(doc=1270,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.24559249 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
    0.012202702 = product of:
      0.024405405 = sum of:
        0.024405405 = weight(_text_:conference in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024405405 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.12568209 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.030815974 = product of:
  0.04622396 = sum of:
    0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025886122 = score(doc=6057,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 6057, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6057)
    0.020337837 = product of:
      0.040675674 = sum of:
        0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 6057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040675674 = score(doc=6057,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 6057, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6057)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Vignettes, or vignette-type questions have rarely been used in studies of information seeking, although in many respects the methodology is suited to studies of information behaviour. Vignettes can be described as stories, usually short, about particular characters and situations. They are generally hypothetical, but often rooted in the reality of research findings. In an interview or questionnaire survey setting respondents may be asked open or closed questions to reflect their response to the situation, to describe what could or should be done. A vignette approach was used in a small scale study of nursing professionals in the UK (Urquhart & Crane, 1994) and a similar approach used in the EVINCE project (Davies et al., 1997) to assess information seeking strategies. The technique offers advantages in that perceptions of particular information sources can be obtained in a non-threatening manner, an important point for studies of information seeking behaviour with a group such as nursing professionals who may feel very uncertain about their information retrieval skills. This paper briefly reviews the use of vignettes in social sciences and in the health sciences, for both research and educational assessment. Analysis and interpretation of vignette studies is discussed with reference to the EVINCE project findings. The way nursing knowledge is acquired and codified may affect the validity of the vignette technique for eliciting information seeking strategies.

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.030815974 = product of:
  0.04622396 = sum of:
    0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025886122 = score(doc=279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
    0.020337837 = product of:
      0.040675674 = sum of:
        0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040675674 = score(doc=279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Recently, the importance of application of multiple, qualitative methods has been emphasised in the field of information seeking and retrieval research. (See Fidel 1993; Vakkari 1997). One of the earliest and most ambitious attempts to apply multiple methods was the research project on information needs and information services in local authority social services departments. (Wilson & Streatfield 1977; Wilson, et al., 1979; Wilson 1981). In studies on information needs and seeking qualitative methods have gained a leading position in the 1990's (Vakkari 1997: 451). Indisputably, this is the case when looking at recent information needs, seeking and use research carried out by Algon (1997), Ellen (1998), Barry (1995), Byström (1997), Iivonen (1996), Kirk (1997), Kuhlthau (1993), Solomon (1997) and Sonnenwald and Lievrouw (1996). Furthermore, though the approach of the study is qualitative the application of quantitative techniques is not necessarily excluded. In methodological literature attention is paid to integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques. These methods are not opposite but they complement to each other. In a qualitative study various methods can be combined. Triangulation can be seen in two ways: firstly, to ascertain the validity of research; secondly, to employ the methods that are appropriate to the subject investigated. Application of triangulation in the former way aims at the full, 'objective' picture of the subject studied, while the picture obtained in the latter way is like a kaleidoscope. Thus the ultimate reason for triangulating is to gain deeper understanding of the phenomenon studied.

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.030147111 = product of:
  0.09044133 = sum of:
    0.09044133 = sum of:
      0.04881081 = weight(_text_:conference in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04881081 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.25136417 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
      0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041630525 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3612, 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=3612)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

2. 7.2005 12:22:50

Source

Gaining insight from research information (CRIS2002): Proceedings of the 6th International Conference an Current Research Information Systems, University of Kassel, August 29 - 31, 2002. Eds: W. Adamczak u. A. Nase

0.029286806 = product of:
  0.08786041 = sum of:
    0.08786041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08786041 = score(doc=5028,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 5028, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5028)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses and compares the relative merits of manual searching and computerized information retrieval (online and CD-ROM) for answering reference questions

0.02882145 = product of:
  0.043232173 = sum of:
    0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025886122 = score(doc=3010,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3010, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3010)
    0.017346052 = product of:
      0.034692105 = sum of:
        0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 3010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034692105 = score(doc=3010,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3010, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:03:43

0.028775765 = product of:
  0.043163646 = sum of:
    0.029286804 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029286804 = score(doc=1427,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
    0.013876842 = product of:
      0.027753685 = sum of:
        0.027753685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027753685 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1427, 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=1427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 2.2008 14:17:00

LCSH

Information retrieval / Study and teaching / Germany

Subject

Information retrieval / Study and teaching / Germany

0.027611865 = product of:
  0.08283559 = sum of:
    0.08283559 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08283559 = score(doc=4321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 4321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4321)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.027611865 = product of:
  0.08283559 = sum of:
    0.08283559 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08283559 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.027611865 = product of:
  0.08283559 = sum of:
    0.08283559 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08283559 = score(doc=5165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.025122594 = product of:
  0.07536778 = sum of:
    0.07536778 = sum of:
      0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040675674 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
      0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034692105 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2002 8:53:04

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.025122594 = product of:
  0.07536778 = sum of:
    0.07536778 = sum of:
      0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040675674 = score(doc=288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
      0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034692105 = score(doc=288,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2002 8:56:51

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.025122594 = product of:
  0.07536778 = sum of:
    0.07536778 = sum of:
      0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040675674 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034692105 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:40:39

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.025122594 = product of:
  0.07536778 = sum of:
    0.07536778 = sum of:
      0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040675674 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
      0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034692105 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:42:19

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen