Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034293205 = product of:
  0.06858641 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 4380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=4380,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 4380, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4380)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.06387796 = weight(_text_:term in 4380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387796 = score(doc=4380,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.29162687 = fieldWeight in 4380, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4380)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We return to arguments made 10 years ago that online catalogs are difficult to use because their design does not incorporate sufficient understanding of searching behavior. The earlier article examined studies of information retrieval system searching for their implications for online catalog design; this article examines the implications of card catalog design for online catalogs. With this analysis, we hope to contribute to a better understanding of user behavior and to lay to rest the card catalog design model for online catalogs. We discuss the problems with query matching systems, which were designed for skilled search intermediaries rather than end-users, and the knowledge and skills they require in the information-seeking process, illustrated with examples of searching card and online catalogs. Searching requires conceptual knowledge of the information retrieval process - translating an information need into a searchable query; semantic knowledge of how to implement a query in a given system - the how and when to use system features; and technical skills in executing the query - basic computing skills and the syntax of entering queries as specific search statements. In the short term, we can help make online catalogs easier to use through improved training and documentation that is based on information-seeking bahavior, with the caveat that good training is not a substitute for good system design. Our long term goal should be to design intuitive systems that require a minimum of instruction. Given the complexity of the information retrieval problem and the limited capabilities of today's systems, we are far from achieving that goal. If libraries are to provide primary information services for the networked world, they need to put research results on the information-seeking process into practice in designing the next generation of online public access information retrieval systems

0.014115169 = product of:
  0.056460675 = sum of:
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=36,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

University libraries are partnering with disciplinary data producers to provide long-term digital curation of research data sets. Managing data set producer expectations and guiding future development of library services requires understanding the decisions libraries make about curatorial activities, why they make these decisions, and the effects on future data reuse. We present a study, comprising interviews (n = 43) and ethnographic observation, of two university libraries who partnered with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) collaboration to curate a significant astronomy data set. The two libraries made different choices of the materials to curate and associated services, which resulted in different reuse possibilities. Each of the libraries offered partial solutions to the SDSS leaders' objectives. The libraries' approaches to curation diverged due to contextual factors, notably the extant infrastructure at their disposal (including technical infrastructure, staff expertise, values and internal culture, and organizational structure). The Data Transfer Process case offers lessons in understanding how libraries choose curation paths and how these choices influence possibilities for data reuse. Outcomes may not match data producers' initial expectations but may create opportunities for reusing data in unexpected and beneficial ways.

0.011292135 = product of:
  0.04516854 = sum of:
    0.04516854 = weight(_text_:term in 2785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04516854 = score(doc=2785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.20621133 = fieldWeight in 2785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2785)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Big Data" is on the covers of Science, Nature, the Economist, and Wired magazines, on the front pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. But despite the media hyperbole, as Christine Borgman points out in this examination of data and scholarly research, having the right data is usually better than having more data; little data can be just as valuable as big data. In many cases, there are no data -- because relevant data don't exist, cannot be found, or are not available. Moreover, data sharing is difficult, incentives to do so are minimal, and data practices vary widely across disciplines. Borgman, an often-cited authority on scholarly communication, argues that data have no value or meaning in isolation; they exist within a knowledge infrastructure -- an ecology of people, practices, technologies, institutions, material objects, and relationships. After laying out the premises of her investigation -- six "provocations" meant to inspire discussion about the uses of data in scholarship -- Borgman offers case studies of data practices in the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities, and then considers the implications of her findings for scholarly practice and research policy. To manage and exploit data over the long term, Borgman argues, requires massive investment in knowledge infrastructures; at stake is the future of scholarship.

0.0047701527 = product of:
  0.019080611 = sum of:
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5507, 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=5507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.2, S.121-127

0.003975128 = product of:
  0.015900511 = sum of:
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, 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=248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29

0.003975128 = product of:
  0.015900511 = sum of:
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 5325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=5325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5325, 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=5325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 7.2019 11:58:22

0.003180102 = product of:
  0.012720408 = sum of:
    0.012720408 = product of:
      0.025440816 = sum of:
        0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025440816 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, 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=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22

0.0029132022 = product of:
  0.011652809 = sum of:
    0.011652809 = product of:
      0.046611235 = sum of:
        0.046611235 = weight(_text_:based in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046611235 = score(doc=2769,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study assessed the ability of children to categorise concepts that will be used to organise an information retrieval interface. The work was done of Project SEED (Science for Early Educational Development), a project to develop hands-on science programmes for elementary schools. Aims to tailor an interface to the particular skills of children in organising science knowledge. The results are promising for the design of IR interfaces based on children's abilities to manipulate information.

0.002059945 = product of:
  0.00823978 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 6536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=6536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 6536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6536)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

CD-ROM data bases are being adopted rapidly by libraries and are being made available to end-users. Compares online information retrieval systems and CD-ROM based retrieval systems, assessing structure and content characteristics that contribute to user behaviour. CD-ROM systems are comparable in database content and in interface style, although CD-ROM systems often provide multiple user interfaces, have smaller databases, less time pressure, and no telecommunications requirements. Some of the differences might lead to better retrieval performance by novice users, but many unanswered questions remain about the influence of time pressure, database size, interface style, training, and skill transfer among systems

0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=2591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As we seek both to improve public school education in high technology areas and to link libraries and classrooms on the 'information superhighway', we need to understand more about children's information searching abilities. We present results of 4 experiments conducted on 4 versions of the Science Library Catalog (SLC), a Dewey Decimal based hierarchical browsing systems implemeted in HyperCard without a keyboard. The experiments were conducted over a 3-year period at 3 sites, with 4 databases, and with comparisons to 2 different keyword online catalogs. Subjects were ethnically and culturally diverse children aged 9 through 12; with 32 to 34 children participating in each experiment. Children were provided explicit instruction and reference materials for the keyword systems but not for the SLC. The number of search topics matched was comparable across all systems and all experiments; search times were comparable, thought hey varied among the 4 SLC versions and between the 2 keyword OPACs. The SLC overall was robust to differences in age, sex and computer experience. One of the keyword OPACs was subject to minor effects of age and computer experience; the other was not. We found relationships between search topic and system structure, such that the most difficult topics on the SLC were those hard to locate in the hierarchy, and those most difficult on the keyword OPACs were hard to spell or required children to generate their own search terms. The SLC approach overcomes problems with several searching features that are difficult for children in typical keyword OPAC systems; typing skills, spelling, vocabulary, and Boolean logic. Results have general implications for the desing of information retrieval systems for children

0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=4385,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on a continuing project to study children's use of a graphically-based direct manipulation interface for science materials. The Science Library Catalogue (SLC), a component of project SEED, has been implemented in the libraries of 21 elementary schools in Los Angeles and will soon be implemented in a public library. The interface employs a hierarchical structure drawn from the DDC and implemented in HyperCard on the Macintosh. The study on the 2nd version of the interface indicates that children are able to use the Science Library Catalogue unaided, with reasonable success in finding items. Search success on the same topics on a Boolean command driven system was equivalent, but Boolean searches were faster. However, the Boolean system was more sensitive to differences in age, with 12-year-olds having significantly better success rates than 10-year-olds; and to search topic, with one set of questions being much easier to search than the other. On average, children liked the 2 systems about the same; the Boolean system was more attractive to certain age and gender combinations, while the Science Library Catalogue was more consistently liked across groups. results are compared to prior studies on the Science Library Catalogue and other online catalogues

0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

When developing university-based research data curation services, libraries face critical decisions around organization and sustainability that can affect dataset producers' satisfaction with these services. We present a study, involving interviews (n = 43) and ethnographic observation, of how two libraries partnered with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to curate a significant astronomy dataset. Each library took different decisions: one library assigned activities to a unit specializing in digital curation, while the other distributed activities across its existing units. Neither approach proved a silver bullet. While library staff members felt the outcomes largely met their expectations, SDSS leaders expressed mixed opinions. We identify three factors that contributed to these differences in perspective: differing strategic motivations for undertaking this Data Transfer Process, SDSS leaders' misperceptions about libraries, and organizational mismatches. These factors contributed to four differences in perspective between SDSS leaders and library staff: provenance as technical information or as information about social context, dataset as a live research object or as a static object to be preserved, systems and services tailored to the dataset or easily adaptable to other datasets, and obstacles as setbacks or as opportunities. Only those differences that emerged when SDSS collaboration members and library staff communicated frequently were resolved.