Search (289 results, page 1 of 15)

0.06929502 = product of:
  0.13859004 = sum of:
    0.13859004 = sum of:
      0.1139326 = weight(_text_:search in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1139326 = score(doc=2509,freq=44.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.6304111 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
              44.0 = termFreq=44.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.024657432 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024657432 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A relevancy-ranking algorithm for a natural language interface to Boolean online public access catalogs (OPACs) was formulated and compared with that currently used in a knowledge-based search interface called the E-Referencer, being developed by the authors. The algorithm makes use of seven weIl-known ranking criteria: breadth of match, section weighting, proximity of query words, variant word forms (stemming), document frequency, term frequency and document length. The algorithm converts a natural language query into a series of increasingly broader Boolean search statements. In a small experiment with ten subjects in which the algorithm was simulated by hand, the algorithm obtained good results with a mean overall precision of 0.42 and mean average precision of 0.62, representing a 27 percent improvement in precision and 41 percent improvement in average precision compared to the E-Referencer. The usefulness of each step in the algorithm was analyzed and suggestions are made for improving the algorithm.

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.0590094 = product of:
  0.1180188 = sum of:
    0.1180188 = sum of:
      0.068703935 = weight(_text_:search in 6958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068703935 = score(doc=6958,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 6958, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6958)
      0.049314864 = weight(_text_:22 in 6958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049314864 = score(doc=6958,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6958, 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=6958)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on the design of a GUI for the Okapi 'best match' retrieval system developed at the Centre for Interactive Systems Research, City University, UK, for online library catalogues. The X-Windows interface includes an interactive query expansion (IQE) facilty which involves the user in the selection of query terms to reformulate a search. Presents the design rationale, based on a game board metaphor, and describes the features of each of the stages of the search interaction. Reports on the early operational field trial and discusses relevant evaluation issues and objectives

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

0.0590094 = product of:
  0.1180188 = sum of:
    0.1180188 = sum of:
      0.068703935 = weight(_text_:search in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.068703935 = score(doc=3599,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
      0.049314864 = weight(_text_:22 in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049314864 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Patron queries at a four-year comprehensive college's online public access catalog were examined via transaction logs from March 2007. Three representative days were isolated for a more detailed examination of search characteristics. The results show that library users employed an average of one to three terms in a search, did not use Boolean operators, and made use of limits one-tenth of the time. Failed queries remained problematic, as a full one-third of searches resulted in zero hits. Implications and recommendations for improvements in the online public access catalog are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.05594051 = product of:
  0.11188102 = sum of:
    0.11188102 = sum of:
      0.055521168 = weight(_text_:search in 336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055521168 = score(doc=336,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 336, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=336)
      0.056359846 = weight(_text_:22 in 336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056359846 = score(doc=336,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 336, 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=336)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The growing interest in end user or direct patron access to on-line bibliographic databases is reviewed with references to online catalogues, databases, and CD-ROMs. The literature of end user searching is surveyed with notes on: user training, software search aids, end user services in libraries: characterisation of end user searches; the role of librarians; and CD-ROMs as end user media

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.227-263

0.05594051 = product of:
  0.11188102 = sum of:
    0.11188102 = sum of:
      0.055521168 = weight(_text_:search in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055521168 = score(doc=2588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 2588, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2588)
      0.056359846 = weight(_text_:22 in 2588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056359846 = score(doc=2588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2588, 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=2588)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the European Commission's OPAC Network in Europe (ONE) project which attempts to make it simpler to search a number of major European OPACs crossing all frontiers via online interface. Explains how this is done and the British Library's involvement in it, assessment of the project and plans for the future

Source

Select newsletter. 1998, no.22, Spring, S.5-6

0.05594051 = product of:
  0.11188102 = sum of:
    0.11188102 = sum of:
      0.055521168 = weight(_text_:search in 5185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055521168 = score(doc=5185,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 5185, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5185)
      0.056359846 = weight(_text_:22 in 5185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056359846 = score(doc=5185,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5185, 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=5185)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Stanford University's Socrates II and University of California at Berkeley's Pathfinder are 2 USA World Wide Web based online publication access catalogues under development. They differ in their design language (how an interface functionally and visually communicates to the users). Evaluates each system's interface design and their ability to communicate functionality to users: analyzes design in terms of: colour, buttons, metaphors, layout, and basic and advanced search modes. Concludes that the design languages of both systems have the right directive and have the potential to evolve

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.4, S.98-105

0.048947945 = product of:
  0.09789589 = sum of:
    0.09789589 = sum of:
      0.048581023 = weight(_text_:search in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048581023 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
      0.049314864 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049314864 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The library of the Cité des Sciences et de l'industrie attracts 4.000 visitors daily of whom 25% consult the GEAC system OPAC. Describes a 1992 survey consisting of online questions followed by an interview. The questionnaires were adapted from ones used in the UK and utilised OLIVE (Online Interactive Validation and Evaluation). While difficulties arose from users' inconsistency in their replies and failures to answer questions, it has become clear that subject access is unsatisfactory, sometimes because of mistyping by the searcher but also because of the vocabulary problems and lack of guidance in search strategies

Source

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

0.048947945 = product of:
  0.09789589 = sum of:
    0.09789589 = sum of:
      0.048581023 = weight(_text_:search in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048581023 = score(doc=4439,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
      0.049314864 = weight(_text_:22 in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049314864 = score(doc=4439,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4439, 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=4439)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the availability, use and value of Z39.50, an international standard which allows a librarian accessing a database on one computer platform to search an OPAC hosted on another computer with a totally different database structure. Experiences of those working with the standard are given, and its use by the European Union IRIS project to link 6 major Irish research libraries is examined. Despite some problems encountered with different forms of author cataloguing and possible competition from the WWW, the standard is seen as possessing considerable strengths, for example in searching different catalogues and presenting the results in a standard format on screen, which justify the continuing interest of librarians

Source

Library manager. 1996, no.14, S.22-23

0.048947945 = product of:
  0.09789589 = sum of:
    0.09789589 = sum of:
      0.048581023 = weight(_text_:search in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048581023 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
      0.049314864 = weight(_text_:22 in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049314864 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4696, 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=4696)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

At Limburg Provincial Central Library and Information Service in the Netherlands the online public catalogue has been replaced by a new system, Foundation. The OPAC network was an automated version of the card catalogue, whereas Foundation has been developed entirely from scratch. The system runs on Windows software and assists even inexperienced users to formulate suitable search strategies. The system accepts online catalogue records from other sources and has attracted considerable intersts from several areas, including the publishing industry

Source

Bibliotheek en samenleving. 23(1995) no.6, S.20-22

0.048947945 = product of:
  0.09789589 = sum of:
    0.09789589 = sum of:
      0.048581023 = weight(_text_:search in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048581023 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
      0.049314864 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049314864 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Subject access in the OPAC, as discussed in this article, is predicated on two different kinds of searching: subject (authority, alphabetic, or controlled vocabulary searching) or keyword (uncontrolled, free text, natural language vocabulary). The literature has focused on demonstrating that both approaches are needed, but very few authors address the need to integrate keyword into authority searching. The article discusses this difference and compares, with a query on the term garbage, search results in two online catalogs, one that performs keyword searches through the authority file and one where only bibliographic records are included in keyword searches.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.048947945 = product of:
  0.09789589 = sum of:
    0.09789589 = sum of:
      0.048581023 = weight(_text_:search in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048581023 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 2207, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2207)
      0.049314864 = weight(_text_:22 in 2207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049314864 = score(doc=2207,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2207, 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=2207)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fac-Back-OPAC is a faceted back­ up OPAC. This advanced catalog offers features that compare favorably with the traditional catalogs for today's library systems. Fac-Back-OPAC represents the convergence of two prominent trends in library tools: the decoupling of discovery tools from the traditional integrated library system and the use of readily available open source components to rapidly produce leading-edge technology for meeting patron and library needs. Built on code that was originally developed by Casey Durfee in February 2007, Fac-Back-OPAC is available for no cost under an open source license to any library that wants to offer an advanced search interface or a backup catalog for its patrons.

Date

17. 8.2008 11:22:47

0.047664165 = product of:
  0.09532833 = sum of:
    0.09532833 = sum of:
      0.060103428 = weight(_text_:search in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060103428 = score(doc=731,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.035224903 = weight(_text_:22 in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035224903 = score(doc=731,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 731, 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=731)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One finding of the 2006 OCLC study of College Students' Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources was that students expressed equal levels of trust in libraries and search engines when it came to meeting their information needs in a way that they felt was authoritative. Seeking to incorporate this insight into our own instructional methodology, Schaffer Library at Union College has attempted to engineer a shift from Google to Google Scholar among our student users by representing Scholar as a viable adjunct to the catalog and to snore traditional electronic resources. By attempting to engage student researchers on their own terms, we have discovered that most of them react enthusiastically to the revelation that the Google they think they know so well is, it turns out, a multifaceted resource that is capable of delivering the sort of scholarly information that will meet with their professors' approval. Specifically, this article focuses on the fact that many Google Scholar searches link hack to our own Web catalog where they identify useful book titles that direct OPAC keyword searches have missed.

Date

2.12.2007 19:39:22

Object

Google Book Search

0.041955378 = product of:
  0.083910756 = sum of:
    0.083910756 = sum of:
      0.041640874 = weight(_text_:search in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041640874 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.230407 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.04226988 = weight(_text_:22 in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04226988 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18208735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051997773 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3013, 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=3013)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The primary objective of the present study was to exmine whether readers conducting bibliographic searches in ALEPH - Israel's research library network - tend to search only within the OPAC of the library within which they are working or whether they access the remote OPACs of other libraries. The ALEPH network has a dezentralized database. Therefore, it was possible to examine this question because each library has its own access code and each database can be searched separately. The data were collected by means of a one-page questionnaire lefr beside each terminal in the library of the Graduate School of Library and Archive Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during an entire academic years. results of analysis of the data collected in this survey are presented in 6 tables

Date

22. 2.1999 13:06:18

0.034351967 = product of:
  0.068703935 = sum of:
    0.068703935 = product of:
      0.13740787 = sum of:
        0.13740787 = weight(_text_:search in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13740787 = score(doc=5186,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.76030433 = fieldWeight in 5186, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Jansen and Pooch review three major search engine studies and compare them to three traditional search system studies and three OPAC search studies, to determine if user search characteristics differ. The web search engine studies indicate that most searchers use two, two search term queries per session, no boolean operators, and look only at the top ten items returned, while reporting the location of relevant information. In traditional search systems we find seven to 16 queries of six to nine terms, while about ten documents per session were viewed. The OPAC studies indicated two to five queries per session of two or less terms, with Boolean search about 1% and less than 50 documents viewed.

0.033598837 = product of:
  0.06719767 = sum of:
    0.06719767 = product of:
      0.13439535 = sum of:
        0.13439535 = weight(_text_:search in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13439535 = score(doc=4042,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.7436354 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although technology can often correct spelling errors, the complex tasks of information searching and retrieval in an online public access catalog (OPAC) are made more difficult by these errors in users' input and bibliographic records. This study examines the search behaviors of 38 university students, divided into groups with either easy-to-spell or difficult-to-spell search terms, who were asked to find items in the OPAC with these search terms. Search behaviors and strategy use in the OPAC and on the World Wide Web (WWW) were examined. In general, students used familiar Web resources to check their spelling or discover more about the assigned topic. Students with difficult-to-spell search terms checked spelling more often, changed search strategies to look for the general topic and had fewer successful searches. Students unable to find the correct spelling of a search term were unable to complete their search. Students tended to search the OPAC as they would search a search engine, with few search terms or complex search strategies. The results of this study have implications for spell checking, user-focused OPAC design, and cataloging. Students' search behaviors are discussed by expanding Thatcher's (2006) Information-Seeking Process and Tactics for the WWW model to include OPACs.

0.032920003 = product of:
  0.065840006 = sum of:
    0.065840006 = product of:
      0.13168001 = sum of:
        0.13168001 = weight(_text_:search in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13168001 = score(doc=3877,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.72861093 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports from a study investigating the extent to which academic end users conduct multiple search sessions, over time woth OPAC or CD-ROM databases at different stages of their information seeking related to a current research project. Interviews were conducted using a questionnaire with 200 academic end users at Rutgers University Alexander Library, NJ and University of North Texas, to investigate the occurrence of multiple search sessions. Results show that at the time of the survey interview, 57% of end users had conducted multiple search sessions during their research project and 86% of end users conducted their 1st search session at the beginning stage of their information seeking process. 49% of end users had conducted between 1 and 6 search sessions and 8% more than 6 search sessions. 70% of multiple search sessionss end users had modified their search terms since their 1st search session. Discusses the implications of the findings for end user training, information retrieval systems design and further research

0.03127882 = product of:
  0.06255764 = sum of:
    0.06255764 = product of:
      0.12511528 = sum of:
        0.12511528 = weight(_text_:search in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12511528 = score(doc=113,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.69228697 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The World Wide Web (simplified here to "Web") is well-known for its "point and click" graphical user interface (GUI) and hyperlink search and navigate capabilities. When OPACs are placed in this operational context, users can easily hyperlink from a bibliographic display to related search terms, class marks, or bibliographic records. This hyperlinking capability is not available in most conventional text-based OPACs. As more and more users undertake their searches on Web-based information retrieval systems such as OPACs, it is natural to ask, "Are Web-based OPACs more effective retrieval systems than their conventional predecessors?" This paper presents the findings of an experimental study which compared users' search performance, assessments of ease of use, and satisfaction with search results after use of a Web OPAC or its conventional counterpart. The primary questions addressed by this research center on the influence of two experimental factors, OPAC search interface style and search task level of difficulty, on the dependent variables: actual search performance, perceptions of ease of use, and user assessments of satisfaction with search results. It was hypothesized that Web OPACs would be assessed as easier to use and that they would outperform conventional OPACs when measured by actual search results and users' levels of satisfaction with search results. Web OPAC searchers outperformed Text OPAC searchers, but search task level of difficulty is a major determinant of search success. The study also found little association between searchers' level of satisfaction with results and actual search performance

0.030051714 = product of:
  0.060103428 = sum of:
    0.060103428 = product of:
      0.120206855 = sum of:
        0.120206855 = weight(_text_:search in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120206855 = score(doc=87,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.66512775 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the summer of 2008 all University of North Carolina libraries switched from a traditional library catalog interface supporting text-based searching (TextOnly) to a text and facet-based interface (TextFacet) to improve users' search experiences. This study seeks to understand the differences between these two interfaces and how they affect the search experience of the novice user. In this study, 40 participants were asked to search for resources using both interfaces. Their search times and accuracy were measured across three types of search tasks (known, partially known, and exploratory). After completing the searches, they were asked a series of questions about their experiences. The data were analyzed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in both search interfaces. Thirty-six out of 40 participants preferred the TextFacet interface to the TextOnly interface. Using three dependent variables-time, accuracy, and rating-the two interfaces were compared and interactions were tested with the three task types. Search times for the TextFacet were shorter and participants preferred the TextFacet search interface over the TextOnly search interface. Performances across the three task types were different in terms of search time. The partially known and exploratory task types showed similar distributions for rating and accuracy. These distributions were distinctly different from the known task type. The results of this study may assist libraries in developing improved library catalog search interfaces that utilize facets as well as text searching.

0.029749677 = product of:
  0.059499353 = sum of:
    0.059499353 = product of:
      0.11899871 = sum of:
        0.11899871 = weight(_text_:search in 2645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11899871 = score(doc=2645,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.65844285 = fieldWeight in 2645, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2645)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the RUBIKON on-line catalogue (OPAC) at Roskilde University Library, Denmark, and the auxiliary search tool, proposed by the library, designed to give better search facilities and handle 'no hit' situations. The tool consists of a search command which expands a search by consulting various types of lexical reference records and performs a series of Boolean OR searches on items from the list. Proposes 3 types of lexical reference records: name records; terminological help records; and classification schedule records

0.029444544 = product of:
  0.058889087 = sum of:
    0.058889087 = product of:
      0.117778175 = sum of:
        0.117778175 = weight(_text_:search in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.117778175 = score(doc=1344,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18072747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051997773 = queryNorm
            0.6516894 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)