Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

0.06371069 = product of:
  0.12742138 = sum of:
    0.12742138 = sum of:
      0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09316782 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
      0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034253553 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In information needs, seeking and use (INSU) research, individuals have most commonly been perceived as users (e.g., Kuhlthau, 1991; Dervin & Nilan, 1986; Dervin, 1989; Belkin, 1980). The concept user originates from the user of libraries and other information services and information systems. Over the years the scope of the concept has become wider and it is nowadays often understood in the sense of seekers of information (e.g., Wilson, 1981; Marchionini, 1995) and users of information (e.g., Streatfield, 1983). Nevertheless, the concept has remained ambiguous by being on the one hand universal and on the other hand extremely specific. The purpose of this paper is to map and evaluate views on people whose information behaviour has been in one way or another the core of our research area. The goal is to shed some light on various relationships between the different aspects of doers in INSU studies. The paper is inspired by Dervin's (1997) analysis of context where she identified among other themes the nature of subject by contrasting a `transcendental individual' with a `decentered subject', and Talja's (1997) presentation about constituting `information' and `user' from the discourse analytic viewpoint as opposed to the cognitive viewpoint. Instead of the metatheoretical approach applied by Dervin and Talja, a more concrete approach is valid in the present analysis where no direct arguments for or against the underlying metatheories are itemised. The focus is on doers in INSU studies leaving other, even closely-related concepts (i.e., information, information seeking, knowledge etc.), outside the scope of the paper.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:55:52

0.03726713 = product of:
  0.07453426 = sum of:
    0.07453426 = product of:
      0.14906852 = sum of:
        0.14906852 = weight(_text_:light in 2619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14906852 = score(doc=2619,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.51047 = fieldWeight in 2619, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2619)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The history of user evaluation of reference service is traced and related to other methods of reference evaluation, including librarian self report of success, behavioral guidelines, and ubobtrusive observation. The evidence to be derived from presently available user evaluations is considered in the light of criteria for a reference evaluation instrument. Concludes that reference success cannot be explained by any one group of factors, and that the best evaluation will utilize many methods

0.03260874 = product of:
  0.06521748 = sum of:
    0.06521748 = product of:
      0.13043496 = sum of:
        0.13043496 = weight(_text_:light in 1421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13043496 = score(doc=1421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 1421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Desicusses the user training programme of the Helsinki University of Technology Library in the light of an internordic monitoring project. In the project, the use of OPACs was evaluated by analyzing the transaction logs and it was concluded that end users do not exploit the various possibilities of OPACs. A large part of the material found in the collections in the library is not retrieved: misspellings, lack of truncation, inequate use of Boolean operators and wrong database choices lead to ineffective retrieval. Emphasis in the online catalogue training has been on the 'hands on' exercises and it appears that the training programme is not very effective in the area of subject searching. Presents reasons for this and discusses plans for the future development of the library user training programme

0.03260874 = product of:
  0.06521748 = sum of:
    0.06521748 = product of:
      0.13043496 = sum of:
        0.13043496 = weight(_text_:light in 74) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13043496 = score(doc=74,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 74, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=74)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reviews a series of studies conducted by C.C, Kuhlthau who investigated users' information seeking behaviour in libraries over a 10 year period. In her study she constructed and Information Search Process (ISP) Model which represents aspects of user activities as a whole including feelings, thoughts and actions or behaviour. Argues that, while the ISP model sheds new light on user studies, it has problems in the following areas: problem solving processes; the understanding of 'feelings'; and the method of investigating users' information seeking behaviour. Recommends that the ISP model be reconstructed from different perspectives and verified in areas other than libraries. This may lead to the development of a new model of information seeking

0.026351841 = product of:
  0.052703682 = sum of:
    0.052703682 = product of:
      0.105407365 = sum of:
        0.105407365 = weight(_text_:light in 5832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105407365 = score(doc=5832,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3609568 = fieldWeight in 5832, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study set out to determine: (1) what were the searching characteristics of end-users in a non-academic environment and explain this in the light of their information needs; (2) whether these characteristics were those that were ascribed to end users in the professional literature; (3) whether they differed materially from those of information professionals working in the same fields. Searching characteristics were interpreted in their widest sense to include: command utilisation/knowledge; search success a satisfaction; volume of searching; searching style / approach; duration of searches; file selection; willingness to delegate and levels of training. These issues were explored in relation to 2 practitioner groups - journalists from he Guardian newspaper, and politicians from The House of Commons. Comparative data were also sought from information professionals in these 2 organisations. A mixture of social and statistical methods was used to monitor end-user and professional searching, though transactional log analysis was strongly featured. Altogether the searching behaviour of 170 end users was evaluated in the light of the searching behaviour of 70 librarians. The principal findings were that: in some respects end users did conform to the picture that information professionals have of them: they did seartch with a limited range of commands; more of their searches produced no results, and search statements were simplly constructed. But in other respects they confounded their image - they could be very quick and economical searchers, and they did not display meters of print-out. However, there were variations between individual end users, and it was often possible to find an end-user group that matched an information professional group on one aspect of online searching or another. The online behaviour of end users was very much related to their general information seeking behaviour; and to the fact that they were not trained

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, 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=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, 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=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=722,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is very little qualitative data on what impact the Internet is having on information seeking in the workplace. Using open-ended interviews, questionnaires and observation, the impact of the Internet on the British Media was assessed. The focus was largely on newspapers, with The Guardian being covered in some depth. Over 300 journalists and media librarians were surveyed. It was found that amongst traditional journalists use was light. Poor access to the Internet - and good access to other information resources - were largely the reasons for this. Of the journalists it was mainly the older and more senior journalists and the New Media journalists who used the Internet. Librarians were also significant users. Searching the World Wide Web was the principal Internet activity and use was generally conservative in character. Newspapers and official sites were favoured, and searches were mainly of a fact-checking nature. Email was used on a very limited scale and was not regarded as a serious journalistic tool. Non-users were partly put off by the Internet's potential for overloading them with information and its reputation for producing information of suspect quality. Users generally dismissed these concerns, dealing with potential overload and quality problems largely by using authoritative sites and exploiting the lower quality data where it was needed. Where the Internet has been used it has not been at the expense of other information sources or communication channels, but online hosts seem to be at most risk in the future.

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 1824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=1824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since the adoption of faceted search in a small number of academic libraries in 2006, faceted search interfaces have gained popularity in academic and public libraries. This article clarifies whether faceted search improves the interactions between searchers and library catalogs and sheds light on ways that facets are used during a library search. To study searchers' behaviors in natural situations, we collected from the servers a data set with more than 1.5 million useful search logs. Logs were parsed, statistically analyzed, and manually studied using visualization tools to gain a general understanding of how facets are used in the search process. A user experiment with 24 subjects was conducted to further understand contextual information, such as the searchers' motivations and perceptions. The results indicate that most searchers were able to understand the concept of facets naturally and easily. The faceted search was not able to shorten the search time but was able to improve the search accuracy. Facets were used more for open-ended tasks and difficult tasks that require more effort to learn, investigate, and explore. Overall, the results weaved a detailed "story" about the ways that people use facets and the ways that facets help people use library catalogs.

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=3752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Web search engines act as gatekeepers when people search for information online. Research has shown that search engine users seem to trust the search engines' ranking uncritically and mostly select top-ranked results. This study further examines search engine users' selection behavior. Drawing from the credibility and information research literature, we test whether the presence or absence of certain credibility cues influences the selection probability of search engine results. In an observational study, participants (N?=?247) completed two information research tasks on preset search engine results pages, on which three credibility cues (source reputation, message neutrality, and social recommendations) as well as the search result ranking were systematically varied. The results of our study confirm the significance of the ranking. Of the three credibility cues, only reputation had an additional effect on selection probabilities. Personal characteristics (prior knowledge about the researched issues, search engine usage patterns, etc.) did not influence the preference for search results linked with certain credibility cues. These findings are discussed in light of situational and contextual characteristics (e.g., involvement, low-cost scenarios).

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=4219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In recent years, millions of households have shifted from traditional TVs to smart TVs for viewing online videos on TV screens. In this article, we perform extensive analyses on a large-scale online video viewing log on smart TVs. Because time influences almost every aspect of our lives, our aim is to understand temporal patterns of the online video viewing behavior of smart TV viewers at the crowd level. First, we measure the amount of time per hour spent in watching online videos on smart TV by each household on each day. By applying clustering techniques, we identify eight daily patterns whose peak hours occur in different segments of the day. The differences among households can be characterized by three types of temporal habits. We also uncover five periodic weekly patterns. There seems to be a circadian rhythm at the crow level. Further analysis confirms that there exists a holiday effect in the online video viewing behavior on smart TVs. Finally, we investigate the popularity variations of different video categories over the day. The obtained insights shed light on how we can partition a day to improve the performance of time-aware video recommendations for smart TV viewers.

0.02055213 = product of:
  0.04110426 = sum of:
    0.04110426 = product of:
      0.08220852 = sum of:
        0.08220852 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08220852 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, 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=1628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3687, 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=3687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:07:29

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5299, 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=5299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:17:44

0.013701421 = product of:
  0.027402842 = sum of:
    0.027402842 = product of:
      0.054805685 = sum of:
        0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054805685 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.011988743 = product of:
  0.023977486 = sum of:
    0.023977486 = product of:
      0.047954973 = sum of:
        0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047954973 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

0.011988743 = product of:
  0.023977486 = sum of:
    0.023977486 = product of:
      0.047954973 = sum of:
        0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047954973 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.011988743 = product of:
  0.023977486 = sum of:
    0.023977486 = product of:
      0.047954973 = sum of:
        0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047954973 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1795, 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=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.4, S.1-22

0.011988743 = product of:
  0.023977486 = sum of:
    0.023977486 = product of:
      0.047954973 = sum of:
        0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 6966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047954973 = score(doc=6966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6966, 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=6966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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