Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.11757234 = product of:
  0.1763585 = sum of:
    0.15592465 = weight(_text_:search in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15592465 = score(doc=1757,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.89236253 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions

0.09442082 = product of:
  0.14163123 = sum of:
    0.0986154 = weight(_text_:search in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0986154 = score(doc=4483,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5643796 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
    0.043015826 = product of:
      0.08603165 = sum of:
        0.08603165 = weight(_text_:engines in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08603165 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper uses a mix of qualitative and quantitative methodology to analyse differences between Finnish and American web searchers (n=27 per country) in their choice of initial search strategies (direct address, subject directory and search engines) and their reasoning underlying these choices, with data gathered via a questionnaire. The paper looks at these differences for four types of questions with two variables: closed/open and predictable/unpredictable source of answer (n=16 questions per searcher; total n=864 questions). The paper found significant differences between the two groups' initial search strategies and for three of the four types of questions. The reasoning varied across countries and questions as well, with Finns mentioning fewer reasons although both groups mentioned in aggregate a total of 1,284 reasons in twenty-four reason categories. The reasoning indicated that both country groups considered not only question-related reasons but also source- and search-strategy related reasons in making their decision. The research raises questions about considering cultural differences in designing web search access mechanisms.

0.0469695 = product of:
  0.1409085 = sum of:
    0.1409085 = weight(_text_:search in 7740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1409085 = score(doc=7740,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.8064245 = fieldWeight in 7740, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7740)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The effect of extending the scope of search concepts on the intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency is considered. The scope of the search concept was extended on the basis of controlling the semantic relationships between search terms. The study is based on the empirical data where 12 searchers analyzed 8 search requests and selected search concepts and search terms for a search in a certain Finnish database in 2 separate test situations. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most with a rather simple evaluation of forms of search terms. The controlling of hierarchical, associative and coordinate relationships no longer affected consistency figures so much

0.04648775 = product of:
  0.13946325 = sum of:
    0.13946325 = weight(_text_:search in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13946325 = score(doc=2881,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.79815334 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Proposes a model of the search term selection process based on an empirical study of professional searchers during the pre-online stage of the search process. The model chraracterises the selection of search terms as the navigation of different discourses. 6 discourses emerged as sources of search terms: controlled vocabularies, documents and the domain, the practice of indexing, clients' search request, databases and the searchers' own search experience. Searchers navigate the discourses dynamically and have preferences for certain discourses. Emphasises the multiplicity and complexity of sources of search terms, the dynamic nature of the search term selection process and the complex analysis and synthesis of differences and similarities among sources of search terms. Searchers may need to understand fundamental aspects of multiple discourses in order to select search terms

0.04142321 = product of:
  0.12426962 = sum of:
    0.12426962 = weight(_text_:search in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12426962 = score(doc=3869,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.71119964 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considers factors lowering both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in online searching. 32 searchers with different backgrounds first analyzed 12 search requests, and after 2 months 8 of the same search requests, and formulated query statements from them for a search. Intersearcher consistency was the results of more than one factor. There were more differences between searchers ion the selection of search terms than in the selection of search concepts. The most important factor lowering intrasearcher consistency was that the same searcher selected different search terms to describe the same search concepts on various occasions

0.04025957 = product of:
  0.1207787 = sum of:
    0.1207787 = weight(_text_:search in 1667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1207787 = score(doc=1667,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.691221 = fieldWeight in 1667, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1667)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses a new model of search term selection and its implications. The model characterizes the selection of search terms as the navigation of multiple discourses, including controlled vocabularies, documents and their domains, the practice of indexing, clients' speech and search requests, databases and the searcher's own knowledge of the search process. Suggests that the multiple aspects of these discourses influences search term selection. The discourse of a controlled vocabulary is analyzed from various aspects and described as an example of a discourse. Professional searchers and the end users may benefit from adopting this new model of search term selection, learning to see alternative, effective search terms in addition to the words they would normally use. The model can also be incorporated in human computer interfaces of information retrieval systems to support the selection of search terms in a passive or active manner

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Navigation in the selection of search terms

0.035505608 = product of:
  0.10651682 = sum of:
    0.10651682 = weight(_text_:search in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10651682 = score(doc=5180,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6095997 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Selection of search terms is considered a meeting place of different discourses. Discourse referes to the ways of talking and thinking about a certain topic. There exist concurrently different discourses on the same topic. Although the selection of search terms used to be described as a translation process, it could also be seen as a situation where searchers step into different discourses and select search terms from various sources on the basis of their own previous experience. Based on an empirical study, the paper describes the various sources of search terms. They are controlled vocabularies, assumptions about indexing, documents and their titles, clients' words, databases, and the searchers' own search experience. Because the searchers have different experience and are working in different types of work environments, they use these sources differently. The paper also outlines a model for understanding the selection od search terms as a meeting place of different discourses

0.0328718 = product of:
  0.0986154 = sum of:
    0.0986154 = weight(_text_:search in 7480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0986154 = score(doc=7480,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5643796 = fieldWeight in 7480, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7480)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to look at the public libraries, university libraries and special libraries and information bureaus as online search environments in Finland at the beginning of the 1990s. Their challenges and opportunities are looked at by paying attention to their general and specific environments. The changes in the general environment of libraries are described briefly. The differences of specific online search environements are analyzed by paying attention to (i) the age of organisations and the establishment of onlines searches, (ii) the size of organisations and the division of labour in online searching, (iii) the available online information retrieval resources, (iv) the number of online searches, (v) the online searching policies, i.e. the participation of the clients in the search process and the adopted fee policy, and (vi) the clients of online searches. Public libraries, university libraries and special libraries and information bureaus clearly differ from each other as online search environments. So also do their challenges and opportunities differ. A common challenge for all search environments is, however, an ever clearer way to relate the costs of onlines earches to the profits received from them

0.031313002 = product of:
  0.093939 = sum of:
    0.093939 = weight(_text_:search in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093939 = score(doc=333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5376164 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.030991834 = product of:
  0.0929755 = sum of:
    0.0929755 = weight(_text_:search in 999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0929755 = score(doc=999,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5321022 = fieldWeight in 999, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=999)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Defines a search request as a verbal description of a client's information need, submitted by a client and processed by an intermediary interpreting the need. The requests differ from each other and this affects the results. 12 different properties of search requests have been idetified, but are not easy to measure. Examines the properties of specificity and concreteness; complexity; and thesaural and grammatical status. Presents a model of easy (simple, specific, clear) and difficult (complex, general and unclear) requests