Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.037562575 = product of:
  0.07512515 = sum of:
    0.07512515 = product of:
      0.1502503 = sum of:
        0.1502503 = weight(_text_:online in 3696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1502503 = score(doc=3696,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.9484067 = fieldWeight in 3696, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Online review. 9(1985), S.61-74

0.0212486 = product of:
  0.0424972 = sum of:
    0.0424972 = product of:
      0.0849944 = sum of:
        0.0849944 = weight(_text_:online in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0849944 = score(doc=2588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.5364998 = fieldWeight in 2588, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0212486 = product of:
  0.0424972 = sum of:
    0.0424972 = product of:
      0.0849944 = sum of:
        0.0849944 = weight(_text_:online in 2679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0849944 = score(doc=2679,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.5364998 = fieldWeight in 2679, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2679)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.013801372 = product of:
  0.027602743 = sum of:
    0.027602743 = product of:
      0.055205487 = sum of:
        0.055205487 = weight(_text_:online in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055205487 = score(doc=1659,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.34846687 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The model of operationalist and conceptualist searching styles describes searching behavior of experienced online searchers. It is based on the systematic observation of five experienced online searchers doing their regular, job-related searches, and on the analysis of 10 to 13 searches conducted by each of them. Operationalist searchers aim at optimal strategies to achieve precise retrieval; they use a large range of system capabilities in their interaction. They preserve the specific meaning of the request, and the aim of their interactions is an answer set representing the request precisely. Conceptualist searchers analyze a request by seeking to fit it into a faceted structure. They first enter the facet that represents the most important aspect of the request. Their search is then centered on retrieving subsets from this primary set by introducing additional facets. In contrast to the operationalists, they are primarily concerned with recall. During the interaction they preserve the faceted structure, but may change the specific meaning of the request. Although not comprehensive, the model aids in recognizing special and individual characteristics of searching behavior which provide explanations of previous research and guidelines for further investigations into the search process

0.0131469015 = product of:
  0.026293803 = sum of:
    0.026293803 = product of:
      0.052587606 = sum of:
        0.052587606 = weight(_text_:online in 3328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052587606 = score(doc=3328,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.33194235 = fieldWeight in 3328, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Experiments in online searching behaviour have failed to explain the phenomena they were designed to study. An examination of the variables used in research to data finds the most commonly used independent variables are searcher characteristics. Search-process and search outcome variables are the most commonly dependent variables. The search process variables are inadequate because they are situational and subject to constant change. Significantly, these variables measure the cost of a search rather than the intellectual processes involved in answering a request. While these experiments could support the discovery of the 'productive searcher', they cannot uncover searching behaviour. Only in-depth analyses of the search process itself can lead to productive research

0.011268772 = product of:
  0.022537544 = sum of:
    0.022537544 = product of:
      0.04507509 = sum of:
        0.04507509 = weight(_text_:online in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04507509 = score(doc=2103,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Direct observations and analysis of searching behaviour of professional online searchers shed light on thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system - a system that mediates between online databases and end users. Examination of searchers' decisions about the selection of search keys, and of the knowledge about terminological and subject properties that are employed, illuminated the requirements for a thesaurus that will facilitate the selection of search keys. Expert knowledge is needed when: a term occurs very frequently in the database; it has many synonyms; it is ambiguous; it is vague; or its meaning is context dependent. To diagnose such terms and to give advice, a thesaurus would be used together with a variety of text sources such as databases' thesauri, machine-readable dictionaries and glossaries and the databases' text. The thesaurus would be a knowledge structure that indicates frequency data, hedges, and a classificatory structure; both intellectual and automated procedures would be used to create it. Such a knowledge structure in place would require a new approach to text analysis and to the construction of controlled vocabularies

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 917, 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=917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.008840589 = product of:
  0.017681178 = sum of:
    0.017681178 = product of:
      0.035362355 = sum of:
        0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035362355 = score(doc=2336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2336, 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=2336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 5695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=5695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 5695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To provide advice for online searching about term selection and query expansion, an intermediary expert system should indicate a terminological knowledge structure. Terminological attributes could provide the foundation of a knowledge base, and knowledge acquisition could rely on knowledge base techniques coupled with statistical techniques. The strategies of expert searchers would provide 1 source of knowledge. The knowledge structure would include 3 constructs for each term: frequency data, a hedge, and a position in a classification scheme. Switching vocabularies could provide a meta-scheme and facilitate the interoperability of databases in similar subjects. To develop such knowledge structure, research should focus on terminological attributes, word and phrase disambiguation, automated text processing, and the role of thesauri and classification schemes in indexing and retrieval. It should develop techniques that combine knowledge base and statistical methods and that consider user preferences