Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.040320244 = product of:
  0.060480364 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.03380758 = product of:
      0.06761516 = sum of:
        0.06761516 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06761516 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Pages

S.22-25

0.012319634 = product of:
  0.0369589 = sum of:
    0.0369589 = weight(_text_:on in 626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0369589 = score(doc=626,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 626, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=626)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vg. auch die Beiträge in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(2007) no.13, S.1915-1933 (Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: nature and manifestations of relevance) und S.2126 - 2144 (Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance).

0.011761595 = product of:
  0.035284784 = sum of:
    0.035284784 = weight(_text_:on in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035284784 = score(doc=5585,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.3214632 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users' or user surrogates' assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems-inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster's (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'The Influence of F. W. Lancaster on Information Science and on Libraries', das als Festschrift für F.W. Lancaster deklariert ist.

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 7443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=7443,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 7443, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7443)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines traditional and interactive models in information retrieval, and proposes an interactive information retrieval model based on different levels in the interactive process. Proposes a stratified interactive information retrieval model which has potential to account for a variety of aspects in the processes involved. In this model information retrieval interaction is decomposed into several levels that subtly affect each other. Makes general remarks on the state of information retrieval interaction research

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=4150,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A recent study begun at Case Western Reserve University and continued at Rutgers University compared the transcripts of 200 DIALOG searches conducted by 36 experienced searchers on real questions submitted by academic and industrial researchers. Relevance judgements by the researchers were used to give recall and precision scores to each search result. Findings included: a low degree of overlap between searches on the same question in selection of search terms or items retrieved; the more often an item was retrieved by different searchers, the more likely it was to be judged relevant; recall and precision were not necessarly inversly related; there was a significant positive impact on recall/precision from using more cycles (a sequence from selecting terms to displaying results); serious uncorrectd errors were a major problem in poor searches and proper selection of terms a key to successful searches.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=206,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 2980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=2980,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2980, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2980)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

0.0076997704 = product of:
  0.02309931 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=798,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 798, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=798)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Relevance is a, if not even the, key notion in information science in general and information retrieval in particular. This two-part critical review traces and synthesizes the scholarship on relevance over the past 30 years or so and provides an updated framework within which the still widely dissonant ideas and works about relevance might be interpreted and related. It is a continuation and update of a similar review that appeared in 1975 under the same title, considered here as being Part I. The present review is organized in two parts: Part II addresses the questions related to nature and manifestations of relevance, and Part III addresses questions related to relevance behavior and effects. In Part II, the nature of relevance is discussed in terms of meaning ascribed to relevance, theories used or proposed, and models that have been developed. The manifestations of relevance are classified as to several kinds of relevance that form an interdependent system of relevancies. In Part III, relevance behavior and effects are synthesized using experimental and observational works that incorporated data. In both parts, each section concludes with a summary that in effect provides an interpretation and synthesis of contemporary thinking on the topic treated or suggests hypotheses for future research. Analyses of some of the major trends that shape relevance work are offered in conclusions.

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=811,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information science is best defined as a discipline in terms of the problems it addresses. Its origins date back to the scientific and technical revolution after the 2nd World War, and its development has been essentially characterised by interdisciplinarity. Librarianship, computer science, cognitive science and communication studies all share interests with infomation science, but with increasing emphasis on the information society and the information industry dictated by technological imparatives, information science is now at a critical point in its evolution. The problem it sets out to solve are not decreasing but changing, with the pressure to improve access to an ever increasing store of knowledge. The social need for information science is evident, whatever the name given to the knowledge and skills which it encompasses

Content

Translation of a presentation given at the International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science held at the University of Tampere in Aug 1991

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=353,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 353, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=353)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Details with specifics of the study: importance of taxonomy; the method used for gathering data on user assessments of value in 5 research libraries, involving 18 services and 528 interviews with users; development and presentation of the taxonomy; and statistics and tests of the taxonomy. A novel aspect is the division of value of information services into 3 general classes or facets; reasons for use of a service in the given instance; quality of interaction (use) related to that service; and worth, benefits, or implications of subsequent results from use

Footnote

2nd part of a study to develop a taxonomy of value-in-use of library and information services based on users assessments and to propose methods and instruments for similar studies of library and information services in general

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=4032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents selected results from a large study which observed under real-life conditions the interaction between users, intermediaries and computers before and during online searching. Concentrates on the sources of search terms and the relation between given search terms and retrieval of relevant and nonrelevant items as answers. Users provided the largest proportion of search terms (61%), followed by the thesuaurs (19%), relevance feedback (11%), and intermediary (9%). Only 4% of search terms resulted in retrieval of relevant items only; 60% retrieved relevant and nonrelevant items; 25% retrieved nonrelevant items only; and 11% retrieved nothing.

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=612,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Relevance is a, if not even the, key notion in information science in general and information retrieval in particular. This two-part critical review traces and synthesizes the scholarship on relevance over the past 30 years and provides an updated framework within which the still widely dissonant ideas and works about relevance might be interpreted and related. It is a continuation and update of a similar review that appeared in 1975 under the same title, considered here as being Part I. The present review is organized into two parts: Part II addresses the questions related to nature and manifestations of relevance, and Part III addresses questions related to relevance behavior and effects. In Part II, the nature of relevance is discussed in terms of meaning ascribed to relevance, theories used or proposed, and models that have been developed. The manifestations of relevance are classified as to several kinds of relevance that form an interdependent system of relevances. In Part III, relevance behavior and effects are synthesized using experimental and observational works that incorporate data. In both parts, each section concludes with a summary that in effect provides an interpretation and synthesis of contemporary thinking on the topic treated or suggests hypotheses for future research. Analyses of some of the major trends that shape relevance work are offered in conclusions.

Content

Relevant: Having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand.[Note *][A version of this article has been published in 2006 as a chapter in E.G. Abels & D.A. Nitecki (Eds.), Advances in Librarianship (Vol. 30, pp. 3-71). San Diego: Academic Press. (Saracevic, 2006).] Relevance: The ability as of an information retrieval system to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user. - Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2005

0.00622365 = product of:
  0.01867095 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=4523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a larger study whose objectives are to observe, under real life conditions, the nature and patterns of interaction between users, intermediaries, and computer sysrtems in the context of online information searching and retrieval. Reports various analyses on the relation of search term sources and the retrieval of items judges as to their relevance. While the users generated the largest proportion of search terms (61%) which were responsible for 68% of retrieved items judges relevant, other sources in the interaction process played an important role

0.006159817 = product of:
  0.01847945 = sum of:
    0.01847945 = weight(_text_:on in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01847945 = score(doc=6980,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.16835764 = fieldWeight in 6980, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6980)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In previous articles, we reported the state of Web searching in 1997 (Jansen, Spink, & Saracevic, 2000) and in 1999 (Spink, Wolfram, Jansen, & Saracevic, 2001). Such snapshot studies and statistics on Web use appear regularly (OCLC, 1999), but provide little information about Web searching trends. In this article, we compare and contrast results from our two previous studies of Excite queries' data sets, each containing over 1 million queries submitted by over 200,000 Excite users collected on 16 September 1997 and 20 December 1999. We examine how public Web searching changing during that 2-year time period. As Table 1 shows, the overall structure of Web queries in some areas did not change, while in others we see change from 1997 to 1999. Our comparison shows how Web searching changed incrementally and also dramatically. We see some moves toward greater simplicity, including shorter queries (i.e., fewer terms) and shorter sessions (i.e., fewer queries per user), with little modification (addition or deletion) of terms in subsequent queries. The trend toward shorter queries suggests that Web information content should target specific terms in order to reach Web users. Another trend was to view fewer pages of results per query. Most Excite users examined only one page of results per query, since an Excite results page contains ten ranked Web sites. Were users satisfied with the results and did not need to view more pages? It appears that the public continues to have a low tolerance of wading through retrieved sites. This decline in interactivity levels is a disturbing finding for the future of Web searching. Queries that included Boolean operators were in the minority, but the percentage increased between the two time periods. Most Boolean use involved the AND operator with many mistakes. The use of relevance feedback almost doubled from 1997 to 1999, but overall use was still small. An unusually large number of terms were used with low frequency, such as personal names, spelling errors, non-English words, and Web-specific terms, such as URLs. Web query vocabulary contains more words than found in large English texts in general. The public language of Web queries has its own and unique characteristics. How did Web searching topics change from 1997 to 1999? We classified a random sample of 2,414 queries from 1997 and 2,539 queries from 1999 into 11 categories (Table 2). From 1997 to 1999, Web searching shifted from entertainment, recreation and sex, and pornography, preferences to e-commerce-related topics under commerce, travel, employment, and economy. This shift coincided with changes in information distribution on the publicly indexed Web.

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 4894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=4894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4894, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4894)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports preliminary results from a study, conducted at Rutgers Univ., School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, to conduct observations and experiments under real-life conditions on the nature, effects and patterns in the discourse between users and intermediary searchers and in the related computer commands in the context of online searching and responses. The study involved videotaping interactions between users and intermediaries and recording the search logs for 40 questions. Users judged the relevance of output and completed a number of other measures. Data is analysed both quantitatively, using standard and innovative statistical techniques, and qualitatively, through a grounded theory approach using microanalytic and observational methods

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=7968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 7968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7968)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One in a series of studies on the selection of search terms during an online search involving users and intermediaries in real online interactive situations. Considers: during what stage of the search process were search terms from different sources selected?; how were the search terms selected at different stages of the search process connected with retrieval of relevant answers as judges by users?; and in what sequences were the search terms selected, in respect to their sources. Sequences of selected search terms were analyzed to describe the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that search term selection follows regular patterns in the dynamics of the search process. Discusses implications of findings

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=352)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

1st part of a study to develop a taxonomy of value-in-use of library and information services based on users assessments and to propose methods and instruments for similar studies of library and information services in general

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 6711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=6711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 6711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6711)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In anticipation of the explosive growth of digital libraries, a complex study was undertaken seeking to evaluate 21 diverse services at 5 major academic research libraries. This work stands as a model for evaluation of digital libraries, through its focus on both the costs of operations and the impacts of the services that those operations provide. The data have been analyzed using both statistical methods and methods of Data Envelopment Analysis. The results of the study, which are presented in detail, serve to demonstrate that a cross-functional approach to library services is feasible. They also highlight a new measure of impact, which is a weighted logarithmic combination of the amount of time that users spend interacting with the service, combined with a Likert-scale indication of the value of that service in relation to the time expended. The measure derived, incorporating simple information obtainable from the user, together with information which is readily available in server/client logs, provides an excellent foundation for transferring these measurement principles to the Digital Library environment