Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019783817 = product of:
  0.098919086 = sum of:
    0.098919086 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098919086 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18262155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052150324 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, 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=844)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 6.2008 16:22:20

0.016003607 = product of:
  0.08001803 = sum of:
    0.08001803 = weight(_text_:system in 2828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08001803 = score(doc=2828,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1642502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052150324 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 2828, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2828)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

SIBRIS (Sandwich Interactive Browsing and Ranking Information System) is an interactive text retrieval system which has been developed to support the browsing of library and product files at Pfizer Central Research, Sandwich, UK. Once an initial ranking has been produced, the system will allow the user to select any document displayed on the screen at any point during the browse and to use that as the basis for another search. Facilities have been included to enable the user to keep track of the browse and to facilitate backtracking, thus allowing the user to move away from the original query to wander in and out of different areas of interest.

0.009891909 = product of:
  0.049459543 = sum of:
    0.049459543 = weight(_text_:22 in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049459543 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18262155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052150324 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 683, 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=683)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Understanding information policy. Proceedings of a British Library funded Information Policy Unit Workshop, Cumberland Lodge, UK, 22-24 July 1996. Ed. by Ian Rowlands

0.009891909 = product of:
  0.049459543 = sum of:
    0.049459543 = weight(_text_:22 in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049459543 = score(doc=730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18262155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052150324 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 730, 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=730)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 1.2007 12:03:22

0.009891909 = product of:
  0.049459543 = sum of:
    0.049459543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049459543 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18262155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052150324 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3361, 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=3361)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.1-22

0.005715573 = product of:
  0.028577866 = sum of:
    0.028577866 = weight(_text_:system in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028577866 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1642502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052150324 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach - A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings - Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications - Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications - The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the "Google phenomenon". Originality/value - This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in-depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.

0.005715573 = product of:
  0.028577866 = sum of:
    0.028577866 = weight(_text_:system in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028577866 = score(doc=706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1642502 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052150324 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

At the heart of any discussion of the information sciences, at least when this discussion is held in the English language, lies the problem of the variant, and shifting, set of concepts and meanings of the terms 'library' and 'information'. The term 'information', in particular, has a variety of meanings in different contexts and communities of discourse, providing an excellent example of Wittgenstein's language game. This implies that any terminology built around this central concept is in danger of being constructed on 'shifting sands'. This article outlines, for the English language only, some of these diverse meanings of information, and their consequences for the terminology of the information sciences. It focuses on the variant relationships between information and related concepts, particularly data and knowledge. It also includes an account of the view information taken in the hard and soft methodologies of system science, as well as the new discipline of 'information physics'. From this, some remarks may be made on the changing meanings of the complex terms such as 'information technology' and 'information literacy', as well as those complex terms involving 'management', information management, knowledge management, document management etc. A similar, though shorter, treatment will de given to terminology around the 'library' concept, particularly in view of the change toward viewing a library as an organised virtual information space, rather than physical environment.