Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

0.03743542 = product of:
  0.093588546 = sum of:
    0.044199787 = weight(_text_:7 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044199787 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.25620884 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
    0.04938876 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04938876 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

Source

Information technology and libraries. 7(1988), S.359-372

0.020205619 = product of:
  0.10102809 = sum of:
    0.10102809 = weight(_text_:7 in 5259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10102809 = score(doc=5259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.5856202 = fieldWeight in 5259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5259)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

OCLC/OPR/RR83/7

0.019755503 = product of:
  0.09877752 = sum of:
    0.09877752 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09877752 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3924)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.016933288 = product of:
  0.08466644 = sum of:
    0.08466644 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08466644 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.011288859 = product of:
  0.056444295 = sum of:
    0.056444295 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056444295 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, 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=1628)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.011288859 = product of:
  0.056444295 = sum of:
    0.056444295 = weight(_text_:22 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056444295 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3687, 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=3687)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:07:29

0.011288859 = product of:
  0.056444295 = sum of:
    0.056444295 = weight(_text_:22 in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056444295 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5299, 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=5299)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:17:44

0.010102809 = product of:
  0.050514046 = sum of:
    0.050514046 = weight(_text_:7 in 2286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050514046 = score(doc=2286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.2928101 = fieldWeight in 2286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2286)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 7(1988), S.313-316

0.010102809 = product of:
  0.050514046 = sum of:
    0.050514046 = weight(_text_:7 in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050514046 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.2928101 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Online information 95: Proceedings of the 19th International online information meeting, London, 5-7 December 1995. Ed.: D.I. Raitt u. B. Jeapes

0.010102809 = product of:
  0.050514046 = sum of:
    0.050514046 = weight(_text_:7 in 936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050514046 = score(doc=936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.2928101 = fieldWeight in 936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=936)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 4.1996 10:30:27

0.009877752 = product of:
  0.04938876 = sum of:
    0.04938876 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04938876 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7914, 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=7914)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.4, S.68-71

0.009877752 = product of:
  0.04938876 = sum of:
    0.04938876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04938876 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1795, 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=1795)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.4, S.1-22

0.009877752 = product of:
  0.04938876 = sum of:
    0.04938876 = weight(_text_:22 in 6966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04938876 = score(doc=6966,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6966, 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=6966)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.009877752 = product of:
  0.04938876 = sum of:
    0.04938876 = weight(_text_:22 in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04938876 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18236019 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3599, 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=3599)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.008929707 = product of:
  0.044648536 = sum of:
    0.044648536 = weight(_text_:7 in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044648536 = score(doc=4385,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.25881004 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Searching information retrieval systems is a highly interactive, iterative process that cannot be understood simply by comparing the output of a search session (the 'search product') to a query stated in advance. In this article, we examine evaluation goals and methods for studying information retrieval behavior, drawing examples from our own research and that of others. We limit our review to research that employs online monitoring, also known as transaction log analysis. Online monitoring is one of few methods that can capture detailed data on the search process at a reasonable cost; these data can be used to build quantitative models or to support qualitative interpretations of quatitative results. Monitoring is a data collection technique rather than a research design, and can be employed in experimental of field studies, whether alone or combined with other data collection methods. Based on the the research questions of interest, the researcher must determine what variables to collect from each data source, which to treat as independent varaibles to manipulate, and which to treat as dependent variables to observe effects. Studies of searching behavior often treat search task and searcher characteristics as independent variables and may manipulate other independent variables specific to the research questions addressed. Search outcomes, time, and search paths frequently are treated as dependent variables. We discuss each of these sets of variables, illustrating them with sample results from the literature and from our own research. Our examples are drawn from the Science Library Catalog project, a 7-year study of children's searching behavior on an experimental retrieval system. We close with a brief discussion of the implications of these results for the design of information retrieval systems

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.7, S.568-583

0.008929707 = product of:
  0.044648536 = sum of:
    0.044648536 = weight(_text_:7 in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044648536 = score(doc=1103,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.25881004 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

0.008929707 = product of:
  0.044648536 = sum of:
    0.044648536 = weight(_text_:7 in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044648536 = score(doc=2265,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.25881004 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article reports on a field study of the information behavior of Grade 8 students researching an inquiry-based class history project. Kuhlthau's 7-stage Information Search Process (ISP) model forms the conceptual framework for the study. The aim of the study was to define an end game for the ISP model by answering the following question: How do the student participants' feelings, thoughts, and information behavior lead to the construction of new knowledge? Study findings tentatively indicate that knowledge construction results from an iterative process between the student and information, which can be divided into 3 phases. In the first phase, the students formulate questions from their previous knowledge to start knowledge construction; in the second phase, newly found topic information causes students to ask questions; and in the third phase, the students answer the questions asked by this newly found topic information. Based on these results and Kuhlthau's own ISP stage 7 assessment definition of the ISP model end game, we propose a model of knowledge construction inserted as an extra row in the ISP model framework.

0.008839957 = product of:
  0.044199787 = sum of:
    0.044199787 = weight(_text_:7 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044199787 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.25620884 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

I(nvestigates the constituents of a good research task, requiring students to construct meaning from a variety of resources. The study involved collaboration between a high school media specialist, 7 teachers, and a university faculty member in Michigan, USA. 6 research projects involving 387 students of all ability levels were observed to identify elements associated with meaningsful research. Data were collected from a questionnaire completed by all students and student and teacher interviews. elements found to be related to satisfaction with the research process and to satisfaction with achievement were: student choice of topic, group work, course related topics, clarity of goals and means of evaluation, and process instruction

0.008839957 = product of:
  0.044199787 = sum of:
    0.044199787 = weight(_text_:7 in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044199787 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.25620884 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Online information 95: Proceedings of the 19th International online information meeting, London, 5-7 December 1995. Ed.: D.I. Raitt u. B. Jeapes

0.008839957 = product of:
  0.044199787 = sum of:
    0.044199787 = weight(_text_:7 in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044199787 = score(doc=452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17251469 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052075688 = queryNorm
        0.25620884 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Examines the assumption that people want to be presented with as many different media as are possible in a given application. Reports on an exploratory study designed to assess the media preferences og the 'person on the street' when presented with the choice of 7 different media combinations to find out some unknown thing in a public space. Findings suggests that people do not always prefer to access as many different media as are available. There was a bias toward having some media combination that includes graphics, but there was also some bias against having information presented using sound in a public space