Search (455 results, page 23 of 23)

4.176737E-4 = product of:
  0.0058474317 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=2636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The frequency of non-informative titles of journal articles was assessed for two fields: library and information science and sociology. The percentage of non informative titles was 21% in the formaer and 15% in the latter. In both fields, the non-informative titles, were concentratein only a few journals. The non-informative titles in library science were derived mainly from non-research journals. IN sociology the reasons for non-informative titles may be more complex; some of these journals are highly cited. For the improvement of retrievaleffiency the adoption of a policy encouraging informative titles (as in journals of chemistry) is recommended.

4.176737E-4 = product of:
  0.0058474317 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=2364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 55(2004) H.4, S.211-220

4.176737E-4 = product of:
  0.0058474317 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.970-979

4.176737E-4 = product of:
  0.0058474317 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.

3.5800604E-4 = product of:
  0.0050120843 = sum of:
    0.0050120843 = weight(_text_:information in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050120843 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Theme

Information Gateway

3.3753135E-4 = product of:
  0.0047254385 = sum of:
    0.0047254385 = weight(_text_:information in 6519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047254385 = score(doc=6519,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 6519, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6519)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Relevance has been a difficult concept to define, let alone measure. In this paper, a simple operational definition of relevance is proposed for a Web-based library catalog: whether or not during a search session the user saves, prints, mails, or downloads a citation. If one of those actions is performed, the session is considered relevant to the user. An analysis is presented illustrating the advantages and disadvantages of this definition. With this definition and good transaction logging, it is possible to ascertain the relevance of a session. This was done for 905,970 sessions conducted with the University of California's Melvyl online catalog. Next, a methodology was developed to try to predict the relevance of a session. A number of variables were defined that characterize a session, none of which used any demographic information about the user. The values of the variables were computed for the sessions. Principal components analysis was used to extract a new set of variables out of the original set. A stratified random sampling technique was used to form ten strata such that each new strata of 90,570 sessions contained the same proportion of relevant to nonrelevant sessions. Logistic regression was used to ascertain the regression coefficients for nine of the ten strata. Then, the coefficients were used to predict the relevance of the sessions in the missing strata. Overall, 17.85% of the sessions were determined to be relevant. The predicted number of relevant sessions for all ten strata was 11 %, a 6.85% difference. The authors believe that the methodology can be further refined and the prediction improved. This methodology could also have significant application in improving user searching and also in predicting electronic commerce buying decisions without the use of personal demographic data

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.10, S.813-827

3.3753135E-4 = product of:
  0.0047254385 = sum of:
    0.0047254385 = weight(_text_:information in 840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047254385 = score(doc=840,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 840, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=840)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper reports the findings of a study designed to explore web searchers' perceptions of the causes of their search failure and success. In particular, it seeks to discover the extent to which the constructs locus of control and attribution theory might provide useful frameworks for understanding searchers' perceptions. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of inductive and deductive approaches were employed. Perceptions of failed and successful searches were derived from the inductive analysis of using open-ended qualitative interviews with a sample of 37 biologists at the University of Sheffield. These perceptions were classified into "internal" and "external" attributions, and the relationships between these categories and "successful" and "failed" searches were analysed deductively to test the extent to which they might be explainable using locus of control and attribution theory interpretive frameworks. Findings - All searchers were readily able to recall "successful" and "unsuccessful" searches. In a large majority of cases (82.4 per cent), they clearly attributed each search to either internal (e.g. ability or effort) or external (e.g. luck or information not being available) factors. The pattern of such relationships was analysed, and mapped onto those that would be predicted by locus of control and attribution theory. The authors conclude that the potential of these theoretical frameworks to illuminate one's understanding of web searching, and associated training, merits further systematic study. Research limitations/implications - The findings are based on a relatively small sample of academic and research staff in a particular subject area. Importantly, also, the study can at best provide a prima facie case for further systematic study since, although the patterns of attribution behaviour accord with those predictable by locus of control and attribution theory, data relating to the predictive elements of these theories (e.g. levels of confidence and achievement) were not available. This issue is discussed, and recommendations made for further work. Originality/value - The findings provide some empirical support for the notion that locus of control and attribution theory might - subject to the limitations noted above - be potentially useful theoretical frameworks for helping us better understand web-based information seeking. If so, they could have implications particularly for better understanding of searchers' motivations, and for the design and development of more effective search training programmes.

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1242-1254

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 5175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=5175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5175)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.14, S.1296-1304

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 5231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=5231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5231)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.879-882

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Imprint

Hamburg : HAW, Department Information

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 1785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=1785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1785)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine how various types of TREC data can be used to better understand relevance and serve as test-bed for exploring relevance. The author proposes that there are many interesting studies that can be performed on the TREC data collections that are not directly related to evaluating systems but to learning more about human judgements of information and relevance and that these studies can provide useful research questions for other types of investigation. Design/methodology/approach - Through several case studies the author shows how existing data from TREC can be used to learn more about the factors that may affect relevance judgements and interactive search decisions and answer new research questions for exploring relevance. Findings - The paper uncovers factors, such as familiarity, interest and strictness of relevance criteria, that affect the nature of relevance assessments within TREC, contrasting these against findings from user studies of relevance. Research limitations/implications - The research only considers certain uses of TREC data and assessment given by professional relevance assessors but motivates further exploration of the TREC data so that the research community can further exploit the effort involved in the construction of TREC test collections. Originality/value - The paper presents an original viewpoint on relevance investigations and TREC itself by motivating TREC as a source of inspiration on understanding relevance rather than purely as a source of evaluation material.

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=3068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Young information scientists. 1(2016), S.13-29

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 4039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=4039,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4039, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4039)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.2, S.256-270