Search (111 results, page 1 of 6)

0.013541961 = product of:
  0.04739686 = sum of:
    0.030220259 = product of:
      0.075550646 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=1795,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1795, 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=1795)
        0.039299767 = weight(_text_:system in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039299767 = score(doc=1795,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1795, 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=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Presents a recently composite view of several user studies in information retrieval. Contains personal conclusions and speculations based on these studies, rather than formal statistical results, which so often are not comparable from 1 experiment to another. Suggests a taxonomy of user characteristics for such studies, in order to make results comparable. Discusses methods and effects of user training, then manner of expression of a query or information need, conduct of a search, use of the system command language or its equivalent, analysis by the user of retrieved information, and user satisfaction with outcome. Concludes with suggestions for system design and experimental methodology

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.4, S.1-22

0.007444633 = product of:
  0.026056215 = sum of:
    0.008879616 = product of:
      0.044398077 = sum of:
        0.044398077 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044398077 = score(doc=6966,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 6966, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6966)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 6966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=6966,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6966, 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=6966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Describes the technique used to study hypertext systems from a very general point of view, focus on monitoring searchers' behaviour, predict the estimation of the ultimate goals of the searchers, and estimate the searchers' determination to find these goals. The components are combined via a Markov chain approach so as to study information retrieval in general and hypertext (hypermedia) in particular. Demonstrates how these estimations can be used to assist searchers during their searching process and presents the derivation of a relevance function for documents, based on these estimations

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.0064955507 = product of:
  0.022734426 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7914, 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=7914)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The library of the Cité des Sciences et de l'industrie attracts 4.000 visitors daily of whom 25% consult the GEAC system OPAC. Describes a 1992 survey consisting of online questions followed by an interview. The questionnaires were adapted from ones used in the UK and utilised OLIVE (Online Interactive Validation and Evaluation). While difficulties arose from users' inconsistency in their replies and failures to answer questions, it has become clear that subject access is unsatisfactory, sometimes because of mistyping by the searcher but also because of the vocabulary problems and lack of guidance in search strategies

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.4, S.68-71

0.005567615 = product of:
  0.01948665 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1333)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0147228 = product of:
      0.0294456 = sum of:
        0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0294456 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

n this article, we report on the first large-scale study of end-user understanding of subject headings. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which children and adults understood subdivided subject headings and to suggest improvements for improving understanding of subject headings. The 1991 Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging, which served as the impetus for the study. We demonstrated that adults understood subject headings better than children; however, both adults and children assigned correct meanings to less than half of the subject headings they examined. Neither subject heading context nor subdivision order had an effect on understanding. Based on our findings, we challenge the library community to make major changes to the Library of Congress Subject Headings system that have the potential to increase end-user understanding of subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.005317596 = product of:
  0.018611584 = sum of:
    0.0063425824 = product of:
      0.031712912 = sum of:
        0.031712912 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031712912 = score(doc=2339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.0049339198 = product of:
  0.03453744 = sum of:
    0.03453744 = product of:
      0.086343594 = sum of:
        0.04142957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04142957 = score(doc=7960,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 7960, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7960)
        0.044914022 = weight(_text_:system in 7960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044914022 = score(doc=7960,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 7960, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7960)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports on part of a study of real users' behaviour in selecting documents from a list of citations resulting from a search of an information retrieval system. Document selection involves value judgements and decision making. Understanding how users evaluate documents and make decisions provides a basis for designing intelligent information retrieval system that can do a better job of predicting usefulness

0.0047142673 = product of:
  0.03299987 = sum of:
    0.03299987 = product of:
      0.08249967 = sum of:
        0.05074066 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05074066 = score(doc=3207,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 3207, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3207)
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 3207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=3207,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 3207, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3207)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the necessity of providing new methods of research into user information retrieval behaviour. Notes that the user using the catalogue via the Internet and communicating exclusively with the computer system, disappears from the librarian's direct view. Implementing adequate software facilities in some sense broadens research prospects and improves its quality. Describes research carried out at the Jagiellonian Library, Poland, into the extent of use of OPAC retrieval facilities, throught the application of software that records all information retrieval commands

0.004517464 = product of:
  0.031622246 = sum of:
    0.031622246 = product of:
      0.079055615 = sum of:
        0.051266484 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051266484 = score(doc=3263,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 3263, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3263)
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 3263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=3263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 3263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3263)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports on a study that contrdicts the hypothesis that building detailed subject knowledge into search system improves retrieval. A group with a background in molecular biology performed the same judgements when considering document retrieval as another group without subject knowledge. The untrained panel performed better than any of the members of the trained panel and almost at the level of the trained panel as a whole. Explains the method which uses the probability ranking principle to measure retrieval

0.0043171803 = product of:
  0.030220259 = sum of:
    0.030220259 = product of:
      0.075550646 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=4350,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4350, 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=4350)
        0.039299767 = weight(_text_:system in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039299767 = score(doc=4350,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports progress and future plans for a project to study the interactions of users with information retrieval interfaces. Tests are run with professional data base searchers and with end users who are members of a profession but have little or no searching experience. Interfaces tested include a command language search system used to search DIALOG bibliographic data bases, a non-procedural system that produces DIALOG commands, and several full text systems, including one using hypertext. The intent is to determine which kinds of users perform best with each type of interface. The project is being conducted jointly bay the University of Toronto and the University of Maryland

0.004099487 = product of:
  0.028696407 = sum of:
    0.028696407 = product of:
      0.071741015 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=4252,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4252, 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=4252)
        0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 4252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033685513 = score(doc=4252,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 4252, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4252)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Presents a pilot study for an Internordic project to monitor the use of online catalogues in the Nordic technological university libraries. Focuses on the use of classification in subject searching, how the UDC is used and the extent of its use. Studies user interaction with the OPACs and improvements to information retrieval in the catalogues using the transaction log method to gather data. The pilot study examnines the TENTTU Books database which is the online union catalogue of the Helsinki Univ. of Technology Library, a multilingual database with true information retrieval. The Internordic study itself will make comparisons between the TENTTU system and the new Virginia Tech Library System. Discusses the users monitored, method of analysis, subject searching in the database, results and how the UDC codes were used. Compares this to other studies conducted in Finland and evaluates the project

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.004099487 = product of:
  0.028696407 = sum of:
    0.028696407 = product of:
      0.071741015 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=2874,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2874, 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=2874)
        0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033685513 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.004087601 = product of:
  0.014306603 = sum of:
    0.0044914023 = product of:
      0.022457011 = sum of:
        0.022457011 = weight(_text_:system in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022457011 = score(doc=296,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Previous empirical studies of searcher behaviour have drawn attention to a wide variety of factors that affect performance; for instance, the display of retrieved results can alter search strategies (Allen 1991, 1994), the information need type influences search behaviour, (Elkerton et al 1984, Marchionini 1995); while the task complexity, reflected in the information need can affect user's search behaviour (Large et al 1994). Furthermore, information source selection (Bassilli 1977), and the user's model of the system and domain impact on the search process (Michel 1994); while motivation (Solomon 1993, Jacobsen et al 1992) and the importance of the information need (Wendt 1969) also influence search duration and the effort a user will employ. Rouse and Rouse (1984) in a review of empirical studies, summarise a wide variety of variables that can effect searching behaviour, including payoff, costs of searching, resource available, amount of information sought, characteristics of the data and conflicts between documents. It appears that user behaviour is inconsistent in the search strategies adopted even for the same search need and system (Davidson 1977, Iivonen 1995). Theories of searcher behaviour have been proposed that provide explanations of aspects of end-user behaviour, such as the evolution of the user's information need and the problems of articulating a query, [Bates (1979, 1989), Markey and Atherton 1978], effective search strategies in browsing and goal directed searches [Marchionini 1995, Belkin (1987, 1993)], the linguistic problem of matching search terms with indexing terms or content of target documents through an expert intermediary (Ingwersen 1982) or cognitive aspects of IR (Kulthau 1984, Ingwersen 1996).

Date

22. 3.2002 9:54:13

0.0038721121 = product of:
  0.027104784 = sum of:
    0.027104784 = product of:
      0.06776196 = sum of:
        0.0439427 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0439427 = score(doc=481,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 481, 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=481)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=481)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Research on the use and users of online catalogs conducted in the early 1980s found that subject searches were the most common form of online catalog search. At the same time, many of the problems experienced by online catalog users have been traced to difficulties with the subject access mechanisms of the online catalog. Numerous proposals have been made for methods intended to improve subject access to online catalog records. These commonly involve enhancing the catalog's bibliographic records with additional terms, or incorporating subject authority files or additional thesauri in the database. Another stream of research has concentrated on applying retrieval techniques derived from information retrieval (IR) research to replace the Boolean search methods of conventional online catalog systems. This study describes the results of retrieval tests using a variety of these search methods in the CHESHIRE experimental online catalog system.

0.0038721121 = product of:
  0.027104784 = sum of:
    0.027104784 = product of:
      0.06776196 = sum of:
        0.0439427 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0439427 = score(doc=4381,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4381, 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=4381)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 4381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=4381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4381)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

An ongoing thread in information retrieval research has been the exploration of user goals (or information needs, or problems) on information retrieval systems. It has been suggested that an understanding of goals and their role in the information retrieval interaction can provide insight into appropriate retrieval strategies, relevant documents, and general system design. This article reports on empirical findings concerning goals of users searching an OPAC at a northeastern United States university. These findings were generated during a large inductive and qualitative study of users' interactions with the OPAC. It was found that respondents came to the OPAC to search for a variety of course- or degree-related projects in which they were engaged. Respondent goals were not greatly modified during the course of these interactions. A set of situational elements associated with the respondent's goal was also identified. The implications of these findings for OPAC design and the training of informational professionals are discussed

0.0037004396 = product of:
  0.025903076 = sum of:
    0.025903076 = product of:
      0.06475769 = sum of:
        0.03107218 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03107218 = score(doc=394,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 394, 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=394)
        0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033685513 = score(doc=394,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 394, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=394)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of end-user search experience on searching behavior in the use of an online information retrieval system by monitoring the QUICKLAW searches of a group of law students over a 1-year period. Searching behavior was examined in these aspects: Searcher command and feature repertoires (i.e., the set of commands and the set of features such as Boolean operators and truncation used), language usage patterns (command and feature use frequencies, state chains of first to third orders, and search effort measures), error patterns, search speed, learning approaches, and attitudes towards the search system. Results showed that search experience affected several aspects of end-user behavior, including the increase of participants' command and feature repertoires, some change of overall language usage patterns as reflected in the significant differences in the frequency distributions of commands and features used, increase of search speeds, and change of learning approaches. However, experience did not results in searchers making fewer errors or being helped to recover from errors

0.0036594293 = product of:
  0.025616003 = sum of:
    0.025616003 = product of:
      0.064040005 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2943, 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=2943)
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article reports on an exploratory study of the measurement of commonality in the use of variables or measures by authors and groups of authors who have reported on studies of information retrieval system users. There is some similarity to co-citation analysis in that, when 2 individual papers, or 2 authors of sveral works, use the same variables, this indicates a similarity in approach to the subject. Such usage may be a stroger indication of similarity than co-citation be cause it represents what the authors did, rather than what they say

0.003641347 = product of:
  0.012744714 = sum of:
    0.0029295133 = product of:
      0.014647567 = sum of:
        0.014647567 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014647567 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper highlights some of the significant findings from author's PhD: "Factors affecting the end-use of electronic databases in public libraries." Public libraries have a wide range of different types of users who, unlike academic or special library users, are not necessarily information-trained (see Coles, 1998). Whereas the academic, special library user may have specific information needs that can be met by electronic sources, public library users do not necessarily have such specific information needs that can easily be identified and met. Most user surveys have tended to concentrate on the searching and retrieval aspect of information seeking behaviour, whereas this study's user survey focused more on how people perceived and related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). It was not how people searched a particular electronic source, in this case CD-ROM, that was of prime interest but rather whether or not people actually used them at all and the reasons why people did or did not use electronic media. There were several reasons the study looked at CD-ROM specifically. Firstly, CD-ROM is a well established technology, most people should be familiar with CD-ROM/multimedia. Secondly, CD-ROM was, at the start of the study, the only open access electronic media widely available in public libraries. As well as examining why public library users chose to use electronic sources, the paper looks at the types of CD-ROM databases used both in the library and in general Also examined are what sort of searches users carried out. Where appropriate some of the problems inherent in studying end-users in public libraries and the difficulty in getting reliable data, are discussed. Several methods were used to collect the data. I wished to avoid limiting research to a small sample of library sites, the aim was to be as broad in scope as possible. There were two main groups of people 1 wished to look at: non-users as well as CD-ROM users

Date

22. 3.2002 8:51:28

0.0034888082 = product of:
  0.024421657 = sum of:
    0.024421657 = product of:
      0.06105414 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=4519,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4519, 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=4519)
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=4519,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Explores the variety of user behaviour exhibited by users of information retrieval systems over time and the effort of differences between expert and novice searchers on an understanding of information searching dynamics and on the design of information systems. Based on a naturalistic case study. Points out some of the dynamic patterns of behaviour of children's use of online catalogues (OPACs)

0.0034888082 = product of:
  0.024421657 = sum of:
    0.024421657 = product of:
      0.06105414 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4695, 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=4695)
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 4695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=4695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 4695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4695)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Examines the development of OPACs of the last 15 years and how this has promoted the use of automated information retrieval systems. Investigates how end users use the system available to them and the type of subject searches which they carry out. Compares 2 techniques for mapping searches. Concludes that there is a need for effective diagnosis and monitoring methods and an efficient method of analysis of end user use is essential

0.0034888082 = product of:
  0.024421657 = sum of:
    0.024421657 = product of:
      0.06105414 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=6731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 6731, 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=6731)
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 6731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=6731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 6731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6731)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Examines the development of OPACs of the last 15 years, and how this has promoted the use of automated information retrieval systems. Using the technique of search path maps, investigates how end users use the system available to them and the type of subject searches they carry out. Compares 2 techniques for mapping searches, concluding that there is need for effective diagnosis and monitoring methods, and that an efficient method of analysis of end user use is essential