Search (62 results, page 1 of 4)

0.022824414 = product of:
  0.10651393 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=4450,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=4450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 4450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=4450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 4450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4450)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Compares the results of subject searching in 2 online catalogue systems, one system with authority control, the other without. Transaction logs from Library A (no authority control) were analyzed to identify searching patterns of users; 885 searches were attempted, 351 (39,7%) by subject. 142 (40,6%) of these subject searches were unsuccessful. Identical searches were performed in a comparable library that has authority control, Library B. Terms identified in 'see' references at Library B were searched in Library A. 105 (73,9%) of the searches that appeared to fail would have retrievd at least one, and usually many, records if a link had been provided between the term chosen by the user and the term used by the system

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.4, S.57-79

0.013369182 = product of:
  0.09358427 = sum of:
    0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 2179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05092278 = score(doc=2179,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 2179, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2179)
    0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042661484 = score(doc=2179,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2179, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2179)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Discusses a retrieval study that focused on collection level archival records in the OCLC OLUC, made accessible through the EPIC online search system. Data were also collected from the local OPAC at North Carolina University at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in which UNC-CH produced OCLC records are loaded. The chief objective was to explore the retrieval environments in which a random sample of USMARC AMC records produced at UNC-CH were found: specifically to obtain a picture of the density of these databases in regard to each subject heading applied and, more generally, for each records. Key questions were: how many records would be retrieved for each subject heading attached to each of the records; and what was the nature of these subject headings vis a vis the numer of hits associated with them. Results show that large retrieval sets are a potential problem with national bibliographic utilities and that the local and national retrieval environments can vary greatly. The need for specifity in indexing is emphasized

0.013320256 = product of:
  0.09324179 = sum of:
    0.046620894 = weight(_text_:classification in 576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046620894 = score(doc=576,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 576, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=576)
    0.046620894 = weight(_text_:classification in 576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046620894 = score(doc=576,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 576, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=576)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist

0.012428571 = product of:
  0.08699999 = sum of:
    0.07276198 = weight(_text_:subject in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07276198 = score(doc=5598,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6775613 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
    0.014238005 = product of:
      0.02847601 = sum of:
        0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02847601 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5598, 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=5598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Research shows that 65-80% of subject search terms fail to match the appropriate subject heading and one third to one half of subject searches result in no references being retrieved. Examines the subject search terms geberated by 82 school and college students in Princeton, NJ, evaluated the match between the named terms and the expected subject headings, proposes an explanation for match failures in relation to 3 invariant properties common to all search terms: concreteness, complexity, and syndeticity. Suggests that match failure is a consequence of developmental naming patterns and that these patterns can be overcome through the use of metacognitive naming skills

Date

2.11.1996 13:08:22

0.009990192 = product of:
  0.06993134 = sum of:
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=580,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 580, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=580)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=580,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 580, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=580)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist

0.0066223354 = product of:
  0.046356346 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

One of the problems in information retrieval (IR) research is that few of the non-Boolean features of experimental systems developed by IR researchers have been adopted in commercially available systems which can be evaluated using real users with actual information needs. Without the opportunity to examnine how these features perform with actual bibliographic files and how they affect users in their information-seeking tasks, our understanding of information retrieval remains limited, and system development fails to advance. The research describes here compared two CD-ROM MEDLINE systems for the Macintosh, one of which incorporates many of the features previously identified by research as central to sound and innovative IR design such as: elimination of the need for Boolean logical connectors, acceptance of a natural language query, and ranked output. The other is more traditional in its design. Two groups of search topics selected from the National Library of Medicine's test queries in clinical medicine were searched using both a natural language strategy and a strategy based on MeSH vocabulary. results were compared on the following variables: search input and processing times, set size, overlap between sets produced by the two systems, and evaluative judgements made by subject experts. The findings indicate the these systems differ on these dimensions, and greater variance occurs in the natural language searches

0.00576784 = product of:
  0.04037488 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4078, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4078)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=4078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4078, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4078)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Accessing useful information from a complex database requires knowledge of the structure of the database and an understanding of the methods of information retrieval. A means of overcoming this knowledge barrier to the use of narrow domain databases is proposed in which the user is required to enter only a series of terms which identify the required material. Describes a method which classifies terms according to their meaning in the context of the database and which uses this classification to access and execute models of code stored in the database to effect retrieval. Presents an implementation of the method using a database of technical information on the nature and use of fungicides. Initial results of trials with potential users indicate that the system can produce relevant resposes to queries expressed in this style. Since the code modules are part of the database, extensions may be easily implemented to handle most queries which users are likely to pose

0.005739506 = product of:
  0.04017654 = sum of:
    0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030006537 = score(doc=2339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.00525005 = product of:
  0.0735007 = sum of:
    0.0735007 = weight(_text_:subject in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0735007 = score(doc=4721,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.68444026 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In order to compare the value of subject descriptors and title keywords as entries to subject searches, two studies were carried out. Both studies concentrated on monographs in the humanities and social sciences, held by the online public access catalogue of the National Library of the Netherlands. In the first study, a comparison was made by subject librarians between the subject descriptors and the title keywords of 475 records. They could express their opinion on a scale from 1 (descriptor is exactly or almost the same as word in title) to 7 (descriptor does not appear in title at all). It was concluded that 37 per cent of the records are considerably enhanced by a subject descriptor, and 49 per cent slightly or considerably enhanced. In the second study, subject librarians performed subject searches using title keywords and subject descriptors on the same topic. The relative recall amounted to 48 per cent and 86 per cent respectively. Failure analysis revealed the reasons why so many records that were found by subject descriptors were not found by title keywords. First, although completely meaningless titles hardly ever appear, the title of a publication does not always offer sufficient clues for title keyword searching. In those cases, descriptors may enhance the record of a publication. A second and even more important task of subject descriptors is controlling the vocabulary. Many relevant titles cannot be retrieved by title keyword searching because of the wide diversity of ways of expressing a topic. Descriptors take away the burden of vocabulary control from the user.

0.0051972847 = product of:
  0.07276198 = sum of:
    0.07276198 = weight(_text_:subject in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07276198 = score(doc=1446,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6775613 = fieldWeight in 1446, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1446)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

A recent survey at the Royal Library in the Netherlands showed that subject headings are more efficient than title keywords for retrieval purposes. 475 Dutch publications were selected at random and assigned subject headings. The study showed that subject headings provided additional useful information in 56% of titles. Subsequent searching of the library's online catalogue showed that 88% of titles were retrieved via subject headings against 57% through title keywords. Further precision may be achieved with the help of indexing staff, but at considerable cost

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: A good title has no need of subject headings, or does it?: a comparative study of title keywords against subject headings

0.004806533 = product of:
  0.03364573 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=4088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=4088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

So far, methods for ellipsis and anaphor resolution have been developed and the effects of anaphor resolution have been analyzed in the context of statistical information retrieval of scientific abstracts. No significant improvements has been observed. Analyzes the effects of ellipsis and anaphor resolution on proximity searching in a full text database. Anaphora and ellipsis are classified on the basis of the type of their correlates / antecedents rather than, as traditional, on the basis of their own linguistic type. The classification differentiates proper names and common nouns of basic words, compound words, and phrases. The study was carried out in a newspaper article database containing 55.000 full text articles. A set of 154 keyword pairs in different categories was created. Human resolution of keyword ellipsis and anaphora was performed to identify sentences and paragraphs which would match proximity searches after resolution. Findings indicate that ellipsis and anaphor resolution is most relevant for proper name phrases and only marginal in the other keyword categories. Therefore the recall effect of restricted resolution of proper name phrases only was analyzed for keyword pairs containing at least 1 proper name phrase. Findings indicate a recall increase of 38.2% in sentence searches, and 28.8% in paragraph searches when proper name ellipsis were resolved. The recall increase was 17.6% sentence searches, and 19.8% in paragraph searches when proper name anaphora were resolved. Some simple and computationally justifiable resolution method might be developed only for proper name phrases to support keyword based full text information retrieval. Discusses elements of such a method

0.0047444506 = product of:
  0.066422306 = sum of:
    0.066422306 = weight(_text_:subject in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066422306 = score(doc=2259,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.61852604 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

51 subject searches were performed in an online catalog containing about 4,5 million records. Their success was judges in terms of lists of items, known to be relevant to the various topics, compiled by subject specialists (faculty members or authors of articles in specialized encyclopedias). Many of the items known to be relevant were not retrieved, even in very broad searches that sometimes retrieved several hundred records, and very little could be done to make them retrievable within the constraints of present cataloging practice. Librarians should recognize that library catalogs, as now implemented, offer only the most primitive of subject access and should seek to develop different types of subject access tools. - Vgl auch Letter (B.H. Weinberg) in: LTRS 36(1992) S.123-124.

0.0044548153 = product of:
  0.062367413 = sum of:
    0.062367413 = weight(_text_:subject in 6577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062367413 = score(doc=6577,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5807668 = fieldWeight in 6577, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6577)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Describes an experiment carried out in the City Archives of Oporto, Portugal to test the relative value for information retrieval of controling or not controlling vocabulary in subject indexing. A comparison was made of the results obtained by searching 2 databases covering the same archival documents, one of them without any control in the indexing language and the other with authority control. Results indicate that the database where authority control in subject indexing was used showed better performance and efficiency in information retrieval than the database which used an uncontrolled subject indexing language. A significant complementarity between the databases was found, the addition of the retrievals of one database to those of the other adding considerable advantage. Posits the possibility of creating an archival authority list suitable for use in groups with identical characteristics, such as local archives of judicial groups. Such a list should include broader terms, representing subject classes, which will be subdivided into narrower terms, according to the particular needs of each archives or archival groups

0.0043541198 = product of:
  0.060957674 = sum of:
    0.060957674 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060957674 = score(doc=1857,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Reports on research examining the relationship of searcher performance and perception of performance, particulary for hypertext-based onformation retrieval systems for bibliographic data. Employs a prototype hypertext bibliographic retrieval system called HyperLynx. Evaluates its use by 83 subjects at the School of Library and Information Science and the Golda Meir Library at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Measures of system usgae indicate that there is no significant relationship between confidence and the number of record pages visited, although confident searchers searched for shorter time periods. The reality check measures shows that both novice and experienced searchers were over confident in their performance

0.0043094605 = product of:
  0.060332447 = sum of:
    0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060332447 = score(doc=2874,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Reports results of a study of the use of metaphors as problem solving mechanisms by novice searchers of bibliographic databases. Metaphors provide a framework or 'familiar structure' of credible associations within which relationships in other domains may be considered. 28 students taking an undergraduate course in information retrieval at Sydney University of Technology, were recorded as they 'talked through' a search on a bibliographic retrieval system. The transcripts were analyzed using conventional methods and the NUDIST software package for qualitative research. A range of metaphors was apparent from the language use by students in the search process. Those which predominated were: a journey; human interaction; a building or matching process; a problem solving process, and a search for a quantity. Many of the studentes experiencing the interaction as a problem solving process or a search for quantity perceived the outcomes as successful. Concludes that when memory for operating methods and procedures is incomplete an unconscious approach through the use of a conceptual system which is consonant with the task at hand may also lead to success in bibliographic searching

0.0043094605 = product of:
  0.060332447 = sum of:
    0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060332447 = score(doc=6436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 6436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6436)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0042435653 = product of:
  0.059409913 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 3175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=3175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 3175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3175)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Title words - subject headings: a comparative research

0.004066672 = product of:
  0.056933407 = sum of:
    0.056933407 = weight(_text_:subject in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056933407 = score(doc=386,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Using subject headings for Online Retrieval is an indispensable tool for online system desingners who are developing new systems or refining exicting ones. The book describes subject analysis and subject searching in online catalogs, including the limitations of retrieval, and demonstrates how such limitations can be overcome through system design and programming. The book describes the Library of Congress Subject headings system and system characteristics, shows how information is stored in machine readable files, and offers examples of and recommendations for successful methods. Tables are included to support these recommendations, and diagrams, graphs, and bar charts are used to provide results of data analyses.

0.0036750357 = product of:
  0.0514505 = sum of:
    0.0514505 = weight(_text_:subject in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0514505 = score(doc=2348,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

An analysis of transaction logs from an academic library online catalog describes instances in which users have tried both controlled and uncontrolled (title keyword) vocabulary subject access during the same search session. Eight hypotheses were tested. Over 6.6% of all dial access search sessions contained both methods of subject access. Over 58% of the isolated sessions began with an uncontrolled vocabulary attempt. Over 76% contained only one vocabulary shift. On average, user persistence was greater during controlled vocabulary search logs, but search output was greater during uncontrolled vocabulary search logs. Several recommendations regarding catalog design and instruction are made.

0.0036750357 = product of:
  0.0514505 = sum of:
    0.0514505 = weight(_text_:subject in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0514505 = score(doc=1857,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Examines 3 aspects of keyword searching to see if defaulting to keyword searches might serve as a solution to the problems users find when performing subject searches in OPACs. Investigates if keyword searching produces useful results; if people who use keyword searches to find information on a subject report that they are satisfied with the results; and how keyword searching and controlled vocabulary searching are offered and explained in currently available OPAC interfaces. Concludes that both keyword and controlled vocabulary searching ought to be easily available in an OPAC, and that improvements need to be made in explanation and help offered to subject searchers