Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.036704175 = product of:
  0.07340835 = sum of:
    0.05498566 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05498566 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.018422693 = product of:
      0.036845386 = sum of:
        0.036845386 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036845386 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.033427 = product of:
  0.066854 = sum of:
    0.045360856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045360856 = score(doc=5365,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.02149314 = product of:
      0.04298628 = sum of:
        0.04298628 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04298628 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.

0.026784055 = product of:
  0.05356811 = sum of:
    0.03207497 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03207497 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
    0.02149314 = product of:
      0.04298628 = sum of:
        0.04298628 = weight(_text_:22 in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04298628 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2825, 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=2825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A discussion of the importance of clear cataloguing policies and routines as the basis of quality control, in relation to the methods used in the College of Mexico Library. The fundamental principle is to prevent errors occuring rather than to correct them subsequently. Indices of quality and effiency in relation to errors which do and do not affect retrieval, established through monthly review of samples of the work of each cataloguer, are used to monitor activities and ensure high standards. This process, essentially collaborative, promotes an overall culture of quality

Date

30. 1.1999 19:22:45

0.026784055 = product of:
  0.05356811 = sum of:
    0.03207497 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03207497 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.02149314 = product of:
      0.04298628 = sum of:
        0.04298628 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04298628 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.025071835 = product of:
  0.10028734 = sum of:
    0.10028734 = sum of:
      0.0849351 = weight(_text_:lehrbuch in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0849351 = score(doc=4880,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.3139294 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045324896 = queryNorm
          0.27055478 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
      0.0153522445 = weight(_text_:22 in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0153522445 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045324896 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Katalogkunde von KARL LÖFFLER aus dem Jahre 1956 als Grundlage unserer Einführung kann einerseits als völlig veraltet angesehen werden, weil sie sich ausschließlich auf Kataloge bezieht, die auf Papier bzw. Karteikarten geschrieben waren. Die Fotographie und die Verwendung des Mikrofilms wurde damals als das Medium der Zukunft angesehen. Andererseits sind die Ausführungen der ersten und zweiten Auflage dieses Lehrbuchs von 1936 und 1956 insofern noch immer aktuell, als die Kataloge der damaligen Zeit inzwischen vielfach digitalisiert wurden und nun online verfügbar sind. Unter dem Stichwort Retrokonvertierung gewinnen die Katalogisierungsregeln der damaligen Zeit wieder Bedeutung oder bleiben sie wirksam. Und der Blick auf den geschichtlichen Kontext, den Löffler immer wieder hervorhebt, vermittelt unserer Meinung nach auch heute noch ein Gefühl für die historische Kontinuität der Probleme, die wir heute unter die Begriffe Wissensorganisation und Wissensmanagement subsumieren. «Die Unkenntnis der Lehre vom Katalog rächt sich am Bibliotheksbesucher selbst», schreibt LÖFFLER in seinem Vorwort von 1935, und wir können heute ergänzen, dass diese Besucher weitaus häufiger Nutzer von Bibliotheken sind, als sie es selbst oft wissen. Sie sitzen zu Hause, im Büro oder im Internetcafe an einem Computer und recherchieren in Online-Katalogen bzw. Datenbanken nach Publikationen, oft ohne jede Kenntnis davon, wie die Erschließung der Bestände organisiert ist, und nicht selten auch ohne den gewünschten Erfolg - und nicht immer im Bewusstsein, dass ein Misserfolg vorliegt, der sich bei besserer Katalog- und Datenbankkenntnis hätte vermeiden lassen. Katalogkunde offenbart damit das Spiel zwischen gezielter Suche, über das «Stöbern» (Browsing) hin bis zur Serendipity, in der wir, wie einst die jungen Prinzen auf Ceylon (Serendip) hinaus in die Fremde ziehen, um uns von der Großartigkeit der Welt überraschen zu lassen - und Bibliotheken haben im Sinne der Welt 3 von KARL POPPER eine überwältigende Größe und Vielfalt. Bei dem Spiel, der ein Wettkampf um die besten Informationen ist, kann es nicht darum gehen, die Regeln der Preußischen Instruktionen(PI), der Alphabetischen Katalogisierung (RAK), die Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), die Regeln für den Schlagwortkatalog (RSWK), die Prinzipien des Unified Medical Language Systems (UMLS) usw. im einzelnen zu behandeln, sondern vielmehr nur darum, die Grundprinzipien des modernen Kataloges aus ihrer Evolution heraus zu verstehen, um mit ihnen möglichst virtuos umzugehen. Wir hoffen, dass die Katalogkunde dadurch jene Fassung erhalten hat, die den heutigen Bedürfnissen entspricht, und dass sie damit einerseits Inhalte aus dem «Lehrbuch der Bibliotheksverwaltung», und andererseits aus der «Katalogkunde» von KLAUs HALLER (1998) in wichtigen Punkten ergänzt und erweitert.

Date

22. 1.2006 19:45:49

Footnote

Rez. in: VÖB-Mitteilungen 58(2005) H.3, S.100-102 (O. Oberhauser): "... Ich kann mich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, dass für dieses Buch weder ein inhaltliches noch ein didaktisches Konzept vorgelegen hat. Vielfach scheint es nämlich (auch in stilistischer Hinsicht), als hätten die Autoren hier all ihr Material mit Bezug zum Thema - Vorlesungsunterlagen, Teile früherer Publikationen, Manuskripte, Exzerpte usw. - agglomeriert und nicht rigoros nachbearbeitet. Somit erschließt sich die unbestreitbare Fülle des vorfindbaren Materials leider nur unzureichend. Vermutlich wird man ihr umso eher etwas abgewinnen können, je mehr man vom Thema bereits weiß und infolgedessen die Zusammenhänge selbst herzustellen vermag. Als Lehrbuch im klassischen Sinn ist der Band m.E. dagegen wohl nur bedingt geeignet"

0.019131469 = product of:
  0.038262937 = sum of:
    0.022910692 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022910692 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
    0.0153522445 = product of:
      0.030704489 = sum of:
        0.030704489 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030704489 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.018328553 = product of:
  0.07331421 = sum of:
    0.07331421 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07331421 = score(doc=6365,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 6365, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6365)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.016200306 = product of:
  0.06480122 = sum of:
    0.06480122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06480122 = score(doc=1103,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

0.01536896 = product of:
  0.06147584 = sum of:
    0.06147584 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06147584 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

0.012281795 = product of:
  0.04912718 = sum of:
    0.04912718 = product of:
      0.09825436 = sum of:
        0.09825436 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09825436 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.012281795 = product of:
  0.04912718 = sum of:
    0.04912718 = product of:
      0.09825436 = sum of:
        0.09825436 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09825436 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.011904745 = product of:
  0.04761898 = sum of:
    0.04761898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04761898 = score(doc=377,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on the 34th Annual Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, held 2-4 Mar 1997 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The clinic was entitled 'Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources'. Summarizes the following individual sessions: Visual browsing for information retrieval; Hypostatizing data collections, especially bibliographic; Simultaneous searching of distributed information and subject repositories on the WWW; Information filtering from multiple sources; Thesauri in the full text world; The role of controlled vocabulary in visualizing document associations; Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval; Spatial abilities and visualizations; Using IODyne as an indexing tool; Knowledge structures for information visualizing; Visualizing digital libraries; what role for the OPAC?; How will we provide subject access in the Interspace of the 21st century?; Natural language processing based information retrieval; Building and accessing vocabulary resources for networked resource discovery and navigation; Using electronic services to become an interbetworked business; and Conference Wrap up

0.011340214 = product of:
  0.045360856 = sum of:
    0.045360856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045360856 = score(doc=606,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.009920621 = product of:
  0.039682485 = sum of:
    0.039682485 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039682485 = score(doc=3612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information seeking is a fundamental human activity. In the modern world, it is frequently conducted through interactions with search systems. The retrieval and comprehension of information returned by these systems is a key part of decision making and action in a broad range of settings. Advances in data availability coupled with new interaction paradigms, and mobile and cloud computing capabilities, have created a broad range of new opportunities for information access and use. In this comprehensive book for professionals, researchers, and students involved in search system design and evaluation, search expert Ryen White discusses how search systems can capitalize on new capabilities and how next-generation systems must support higher order search activities such as task completion, learning, and decision making. He outlines the implications of these changes for the evolution of search evaluation, as well as challenges that extend beyond search systems in areas such as privacy and societal benefit.

RSWK

Information Retrieval

Subject

Information Retrieval

0.009720184 = product of:
  0.038880736 = sum of:
    0.038880736 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038880736 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.0092113465 = product of:
  0.036845386 = sum of:
    0.036845386 = product of:
      0.07369077 = sum of:
        0.07369077 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07369077 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, 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=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.0092113465 = product of:
  0.036845386 = sum of:
    0.036845386 = product of:
      0.07369077 = sum of:
        0.07369077 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07369077 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, 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=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.0092113465 = product of:
  0.036845386 = sum of:
    0.036845386 = product of:
      0.07369077 = sum of:
        0.07369077 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07369077 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, 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=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=366,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 366, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=366)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Auf dem Hintergrund der aktuellen OPAC-Entwicklung in Deutschland werden im ersten Teil einzelne Aspekte des OPAC-Designs kommentiert. Es wird u.a. auch auf Möglichkeiten einer Standardisierung der Schnittstelle Retrieval-Software / Benutzeroberfläche eingegangen. Die derzeit dominierenden Online-Kataloge sind für eine Massenbenutzung nur bedingt geeignet, da sie in hohem Maße fehlerintolerant sind, eine Analyse nach Suchfeldern verlangen und mit grundsätzlichen Mängeln der Boole'schen Suchlogik behaftet sind. Im zweiten Teil werden werden Alternativen diskutiert, zum einen in Form eines alphabetisch sortierten Online-Katalogs, zum anderen in Form intelligenter bibliographischer Auskunftssysteme, die Ähnlichkeitssuchen bzw. sog. 'Closest-Match-Suchen' gestatten. Hierzu werden verschiedene Konzepte und Vorschläge vorgestellt

0.0091642765 = product of:
  0.036657106 = sum of:
    0.036657106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036657106 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Explains the Biblos project for the retrospective conversion of the catalogues of the Biblioteca de Catalunya. This consists of the scanning of the catalogue cards, the retrieval of the images via the Web, and the subsequent codification of the information into MARC format. Describes the objectives, methodology, processes and other factors contributing to its fulfilment