Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033875953 = product of:
  0.05081393 = sum of:
    0.033839863 = weight(_text_:of in 6700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033839863 = score(doc=6700,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 6700, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6700)
    0.016974064 = product of:
      0.033948127 = sum of:
        0.033948127 = weight(_text_:science in 6700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033948127 = score(doc=6700,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 6700, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Database usage data from a random sample of academic and public libraries in the U.S. and Canada reveals patterns of use in selected types of libraries. Library users in both public and academic libraries tend to use commercial online databases most frequently early in the week, mid-day, and at times that correspond to the academic calendar (November in this six-month sample.) The mean number of simultaneous users is correlated with the size of the population served and the number of workstations available, but relatively low numbers of users are simultaneously logged on to research databases at all sizes of libraries. A questionnaire sent to these same libraries identified many other factors that might influence database use, including levels of instruction, availability of remote login, placement of a database on the library's homepage, although none of these factors was found to be statistically significant

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.025708806 = product of:
  0.038563207 = sum of:
    0.02255991 = weight(_text_:of in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255991 = score(doc=1919,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.0160033 = product of:
      0.0320066 = sum of:
        0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0320066 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As end users perform their own searches, more insight into their searching behaviour is needed. Identifies and describes the strategies, assessments and affective behaviours from the transcripts and keystroke records collected during 3 searches. The affective behaviours exhibited by the searchers show the involvement of other than cognitive activities in this intellectual pursuit. Particularly interesting is the single mindedness of the search strategies. Describes the searchers' online assessments of the usefulness of retrieved records including assessment strategies that were developed

Source

Library and information science research. 13(1991) no.3, S.237-266

0.023953915 = product of:
  0.035930872 = sum of:
    0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023928396 = score(doc=3113,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
    0.012002475 = product of:
      0.02400495 = sum of:
        0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02400495 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2344-2361

0.023061944 = product of:
  0.034592915 = sum of:
    0.017268835 = weight(_text_:of in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017268835 = score(doc=2027,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
    0.01732408 = product of:
      0.03464816 = sum of:
        0.03464816 = weight(_text_:science in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03464816 = score(doc=2027,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article presents part of phase 2 of a research project funded by the NSF-National Science Digital Library Project, which observed how academic users interact with the ScienceDirect information retrieval system for simulated class-related assignments. The ultimate goal of the project is twofold: (1) to find ways to improve science and engineering students' use of science e-journal systems; (2) to develop methods to measure user interaction behaviors. Process-tracing technique recorded participants' processes and interaction behaviors that are measurable; think-aloud protocol captured participants' affective and cognitive verbalizations; pre- and post-search questionnaires solicited demographic information, prior experience with the system, and comments. We explored possible relationships between affective feelings and cognitive behaviors. During search interactions both feelings and thoughts occurred frequently. Positive feelings were more common and were associated more often with thoughts about results. Negative feelings were associated more often with thoughts related to the system, search strategy, and task. Learning styles are also examined as a factor influencing behavior. Engineering graduate students with an assimilating learning style searched longer and paused less than those with a converging learning style. Further exploration of learning styles is suggested.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems

0.022256117 = product of:
  0.033384174 = sum of:
    0.02338211 = weight(_text_:of in 4213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02338211 = score(doc=4213,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 4213, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4213)
    0.010002062 = product of:
      0.020004123 = sum of:
        0.020004123 = weight(_text_:science in 4213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020004123 = score(doc=4213,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4213, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Novice end users were given 2 hours of training in searching a full-text magazine database (Magazine ASAP(TM)) on DIALOG. Subjects searched during 3 to 4 sessions in the presence of a trained monitor who prompted them to think aloud throughout the sessions. qualitative analysis of the transcripts and transaction logs yielded empirical information on user variables (purpose, motivation, satisfaction), uses of the database, move types, and every question users asked during the searches. The spontaneous, naturalistic questions were categorized according to affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor speech acts. Results show that most of the searches were performed for the self and were work related. The most common use of the database was to retrieve full-text articles online and to download and print them out rather than read them on screen. The majority of searches were judged satisfactory. Innovative uses included browsing for background information and obtaining contextualized sentences for language teaching. Searchers made twice as many moves to limit sets as moves to expand sets. Affective questions outnumbered cognitive and sensorimotor questions by two to one. This preponderance of affective micro-information needs during searching might be addressed by new system functions

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.276-286

0.0065799737 = product of:
  0.01973992 = sum of:
    0.01973992 = weight(_text_:of in 6869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01973992 = score(doc=6869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6869)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0037599849 = product of:
  0.011279955 = sum of:
    0.011279955 = weight(_text_:of in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011279955 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Observes that whether in academic, special, or public libraries or on commercial online systems, CD-ROM, the online catalogue, or the Internet, certain end user errors crop up repeatedly. Details the main errors, which include input errors, errors arising from confusion in the face of different interfaces and screen designs, Boolean logic errors, term errors, conceptual errors, and errors due to the fact that users do not read instructions. Concludes that systems must solve the trivial errors automatically, but user instruction librarians must help solve the more complex problems