Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.002116272 = product of:
  0.008465088 = sum of:
    0.008465088 = product of:
      0.04232544 = sum of:
        0.04232544 = weight(_text_:28 in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04232544 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13367462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03731569 = queryNorm
            0.31663033 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

14. 9.2000 14:28:34

0.0015872039 = product of:
  0.0063488157 = sum of:
    0.0063488157 = product of:
      0.031744078 = sum of:
        0.031744078 = weight(_text_:28 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031744078 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13367462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03731569 = queryNorm
            0.23747274 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.001530496 = product of:
  0.006121984 = sum of:
    0.006121984 = product of:
      0.03060992 = sum of:
        0.03060992 = weight(_text_:29 in 6890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03060992 = score(doc=6890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13126493 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03731569 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 6890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6890)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information science. 20(1994) no.1, S.29-40

0.00132267 = product of:
  0.00529068 = sum of:
    0.00529068 = product of:
      0.0264534 = sum of:
        0.0264534 = weight(_text_:28 in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0264534 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13367462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03731569 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

ASIS'91: systems understanding people. Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, vol.28, Washington, DC, 27.-31.10.1991. Ed.: J.-M. Griffiths

0.00132267 = product of:
  0.00529068 = sum of:
    0.00529068 = product of:
      0.0264534 = sum of:
        0.0264534 = weight(_text_:28 in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0264534 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13367462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03731569 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article addresses a crucial issue in the digital library environment: how to support effective interaction of users with heterogeneous and distributed information resources. In particular, this study compared usability, user preference, effectiveness, and searching behaviors in systems that implement interaction with multiple databases as if they were one (integrated interaction) in a experiment in the TREC environment. 28 volunteers were recruited from the graduate students of the School of Communication, Information & Library Studies at Rutgers University. Significantly more subjects preferred the common interface to the integrated interface, mainly because they could have more control over database selection. Subjects were also more satisfied with the results from the common interface, and performed better with the common interface than with the integrated interface. Overall, it appears that for this population, interacting with databases through a common interface is preferable on all grounds to interacting with databases through an integrated interface. These results suggest that: (1) the general assumption of the information retrieval (IR) literature that an integrated interaction is best needs to be revisited; (2) it is important to allow for more user control in the distributed environment; (3) for digital library purposes, it is important to characterize different databases to support user choice for integration; and (4) certain users prefer control over database selection while still opting for results to be merged

0.0012639402 = product of:
  0.005055761 = sum of:
    0.005055761 = product of:
      0.025278805 = sum of:
        0.025278805 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025278805 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13067318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03731569 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05