-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.05
0.047945403 = product of:
0.1438362 = sum of:
0.1438362 = sum of:
0.08964503 = weight(_text_:reports in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08964503 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
0.04999695 = queryNorm
0.39809695 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.054191172 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054191172 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04999695 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
-
Connaway, L.S.; Johnson, D.W.; Searing, S.E.: Online catalogs from the users' perspective : the use of focus group interviews (1997)
0.01
0.013073232 = product of:
0.039219696 = sum of:
0.039219696 = product of:
0.07843939 = sum of:
0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07843939 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
0.04999695 = queryNorm
0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to elicit information from the users of the Wisconsin University at Madison online catalogue (Network Library System (NLS)). The General Library System (GLS) conducted focus group interviews with undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty. Undergraduate students tend to utilize subject searching capabilities. Graduate students and faculty utilize subject searching only as a last resort; they typically search by known author or title. A significant number of the participants reported experience with library online catalogues other than NLS, although the majority of faculty reported very little experience with other online catalogues. All the focus group participants, but particularly the undergraduate students, evidenced confusion between keyword searching and searching controlled vocabulary. Inclusion of circulation status in the bibliographic records was identified as an important feature of the catalogue
-
Connaway, L.S.; Budd, J.M.; Kochtanek, T.R.: ¬An investigation of the use of an online catalogue : user characteristics and transaction log analysis (1995)
0.01
0.0112056285 = product of:
0.033616886 = sum of:
0.033616886 = product of:
0.06723377 = sum of:
0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06723377 = score(doc=307,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
0.04999695 = queryNorm
0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 307, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=307)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Reports an examination of the results of 114 sessions on the online catalogue, at the Ellis Library, Missouri University at Columbia, to determine what types of searches were conducted and what search modes and fields (title, author) were used. Examination of tranaction logs revealed that title and author searches predominated and that the opportunity to construct Boolean searches was rarely taken advantage of. The searchers themselves reported that they were, on the whole, experienced at using the system; most searched the catalogue at least once a week. This is reflected in the relatively low instance of error and in the fact that most searches produced at least some hits. The majority of errors that were made in the process of searching were typographical
-
Radford, M.L.; Connaway, L.S.; Mikitish, S.; Alpert, M.; Shah, C.; Cooke, N.A.: Shared values, new vision : collaboration and communities of practice in virtual reference and SQA (2017)
0.01
0.009338023 = product of:
0.02801407 = sum of:
0.02801407 = product of:
0.05602814 = sum of:
0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 3352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05602814 = score(doc=3352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
0.04999695 = queryNorm
0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 3352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This investigation of new approaches to improving collaboration, user/librarian experiences, and sustainability for virtual reference services (VRS) reports findings from a grant project titled "Cyber Synergy: Seeking Sustainability between Virtual Reference and Social Q&A Sites" (Radford, Connaway, & Shah, 2011-2014). In-depth telephone interviews with 50 VRS librarians included questions on collaboration, referral practices, and attitudes toward Social Question and Answer (SQA) services using the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954). The Community of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998; Davies, 2005) framework was found to be a useful conceptualization for understanding VRS professionals' approaches to their work. Findings indicate that participants usually refer questions from outside of their area of expertise to other librarians, but occasionally refer them to nonlibrarian experts. These referrals are made possible because participants believe that other VRS librarians are qualified and willing collaborators. Barriers to collaboration include not knowing appropriate librarians/experts for referral, inability to verify credentials, and perceived unwillingness to collaborate. Facilitators to collaboration include knowledge of appropriate collaborators who are qualified and willingness to refer. Answers from SQA services were perceived as less objective and authoritative, but participants were open to collaborating with nonlibrarian experts with confirmation of professional expertise or extensive knowledge.
-
O'Neill, E.T.; Connaway, L.S.; Dickey, T.J.: Estimating the audience level for library resources (2008)
0.01
0.009031862 = product of:
0.027095586 = sum of:
0.027095586 = product of:
0.054191172 = sum of:
0.054191172 = weight(_text_:22 in 6654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054191172 = score(doc=6654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04999695 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6654, 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=6654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 8.11.2008 19:22:53
-
Lavoie, B.F.; Connaway, L.S.; O'Neill, E.T.: Mapping WorldCat's digital landscape (2007)
0.01
0.0067738965 = product of:
0.02032169 = sum of:
0.02032169 = product of:
0.04064338 = sum of:
0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 2292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04064338 = score(doc=2292,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04999695 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2292, 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=2292)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Lavoie, B.; Connaway, L.S.; Dempsey, L.: Anatomy of aggregate collections : the example of Google print for libraries (2005)
0.00
0.0033869483 = product of:
0.010160845 = sum of:
0.010160845 = product of:
0.02032169 = sum of:
0.02032169 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02032169 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04999695 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 26.12.2011 14:08:22
