Search (146 results, page 1 of 8)

0.069549836 = product of:
  0.13909967 = sum of:
    0.10839584 = weight(_text_:open in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10839584 = score(doc=3113,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5170568 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
    0.03070384 = product of:
      0.06140768 = sum of:
        0.06140768 = weight(_text_:access in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06140768 = score(doc=3113,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.38917357 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.

0.058434628 = product of:
  0.116869256 = sum of:
    0.08344315 = weight(_text_:open in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08344315 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.39803052 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
    0.033426106 = product of:
      0.06685221 = sum of:
        0.06685221 = weight(_text_:access in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06685221 = score(doc=1605,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.4236785 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A survey of catalogue use in 1993 at Utrecht University in the Netherlands showed considerable dissatisfaction with the online catalogue's subject search facilities. Of those who used subject searching 64% preferred subject headings against only 2% who chose classification schedules. Library users make little use of the existing facilities for assistance and leaflets which are available in the library. It has, therefore, been decided to provide a programme of instruction in library use and to move towards a unified system of subject access to the library's catalogue

Footnote

"What do users want? Subject access to collections at Utrecht University Library"

Source

Open. 27(1995) no.3, S.94-96

0.05353949 = product of:
  0.10707898 = sum of:
    0.08344315 = weight(_text_:open in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08344315 = score(doc=1423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.39803052 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
    0.023635827 = product of:
      0.047271654 = sum of:
        0.047271654 = weight(_text_:access in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047271654 = score(doc=1423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Reports on a study at an elementary school in Washington, DC examining pupils' use of an OPAC. Presents this within the overall instructional environment of the school in order to open a window on the broader interaction of children, technology, curriculum, instruction and learning. Explains the methodology used in the study, the findings of the study, and notes a number of conclusions. Focuses in particular on the patterns of success and failure of children's use of the OPAC, their search strategies and the nature of their interaction with the OPAC

0.046847057 = product of:
  0.09369411 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
    0.02068135 = product of:
      0.0413627 = sum of:
        0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0413627 = score(doc=360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to obtain information which would help planners of the online catalog design a catalog which would be relevant to the needs of university faculty. Data was obtained by means of a questionnaire mailed to the faculty, College of Humanities, University of Utah. It was found that (1) references in books or articles they read; (2) the Subject Catalog; and (3) printed indexes, bibliographies and research guides in that order were the three most utilized information sources. Browsing was an important fourth. The faculty would like more in-depth coverage of the local library collection rather than access to other library catalogs or online databases from the catalog terminal. Feedback and comments in response to an open-ended question varied.

0.04529343 = product of:
  0.09058686 = sum of:
    0.041721575 = weight(_text_:open in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041721575 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.04886529 = sum of:
      0.023635827 = weight(_text_:access in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023635827 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.025229463 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025229463 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = 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(2/4)

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

0.036521643 = product of:
  0.07304329 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
    0.020891316 = product of:
      0.041782632 = sum of:
        0.041782632 = weight(_text_:access in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041782632 = score(doc=722,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

There is very little qualitative data on what impact the Internet is having on information seeking in the workplace. Using open-ended interviews, questionnaires and observation, the impact of the Internet on the British Media was assessed. The focus was largely on newspapers, with The Guardian being covered in some depth. Over 300 journalists and media librarians were surveyed. It was found that amongst traditional journalists use was light. Poor access to the Internet - and good access to other information resources - were largely the reasons for this. Of the journalists it was mainly the older and more senior journalists and the New Media journalists who used the Internet. Librarians were also significant users. Searching the World Wide Web was the principal Internet activity and use was generally conservative in character. Newspapers and official sites were favoured, and searches were mainly of a fact-checking nature. Email was used on a very limited scale and was not regarded as a serious journalistic tool. Non-users were partly put off by the Internet's potential for overloading them with information and its reputation for producing information of suspect quality. Users generally dismissed these concerns, dealing with potential overload and quality problems largely by using authoritative sites and exploiting the lower quality data where it was needed. Where the Internet has been used it has not been at the expense of other information sources or communication channels, but online hosts seem to be at most risk in the future.

0.026075985 = product of:
  0.10430394 = sum of:
    0.10430394 = weight(_text_:open in 2029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10430394 = score(doc=2029,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.49753815 = fieldWeight in 2029, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2029)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The questionnaire is an important technique for gathering data from subjects during interactive information retrieval (IR) experiments. Research in survey methodology, public opinion polling and psychology has demonstrated a number of response biases and behaviors that subjects exhibit when responding to questionnaires. Furthermore, research in human-computer interaction has demonstrated that subjects tend to inflate their ratings of systems when completing usability questionnaires. In this study we investigate the relationship between questionnaire mode and subjects' responses to a usability questionnaire comprised of closed and open questions administered during an interactive IR experiment. Three questionnaire modes (pen-and-paper, electronic and interview) were explored with 51 subjects who used one of two information retrieval systems. Results showed that subjects' quantitative evaluations of systems were significantly lower in the interview mode than in the electronic mode. With respect to open questions, subjects in the interview mode used significantly more words than subjects in the pen-and-paper or electronic modes to communicate their responses, and communicated a significantly higher number of response units, even though the total number of unique response units was roughly the same across condition. Finally, results showed that subjects in the pen-and-paper mode were the most efficient in communicating their responses to open questions. These results suggest that researchers should use the interview mode to elicit responses to closed questions from subjects and either pen-and-paper or electronic modes to elicit responses to open questions.

0.025661811 = product of:
  0.102647245 = sum of:
    0.102647245 = sum of:
      0.058495685 = weight(_text_:access in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058495685 = score(doc=3599,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3599, 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=3599)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Patron queries at a four-year comprehensive college's online public access catalog were examined via transaction logs from March 2007. Three representative days were isolated for a more detailed examination of search characteristics. The results show that library users employed an average of one to three terms in a search, did not use Boolean operators, and made use of limits one-tenth of the time. Failed queries remained problematic, as a full one-third of searches resulted in zero hits. Implications and recommendations for improvements in the online public access catalog are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

0.021378566 = product of:
  0.08551426 = sum of:
    0.08551426 = sum of:
      0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0413627 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 7914, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7914)
      0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 7914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415156 = score(doc=7914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.018324483 = product of:
  0.07329793 = sum of:
    0.07329793 = sum of:
      0.03545374 = weight(_text_:access in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03545374 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
      0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037844196 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 917, 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=917)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler

0.01825319 = product of:
  0.07301276 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 1176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=1176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 1176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1176)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Digital repository migrations present a periodic opportunity to assess metadata quality and to perform strategic enhancements. Lafayette College Libraries implemented OCLC FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) for its digital image collections as part of a migration from multiple repositories to a single one built on the Samvera Hyrax open-source framework. Application of FAST has normalized subject headings across dissimilar collections in a way that tremendously improves descriptive consistency for staff and discoverability for end users. However, the process of applying FAST headings was complicated by several features of in-scope metadata as well as gaps in available controlled subject authorities.

0.015270403 = product of:
  0.06108161 = sum of:
    0.06108161 = sum of:
      0.029544784 = weight(_text_:access in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029544784 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Source

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

0.013037993 = product of:
  0.05215197 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 6928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=6928,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 6928, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6928)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to describe the criteria mentioned by users evaluating the information within documents as it related to the users' information need situations. Data were collected by asking users in an academic environment to evaluate representations and the full text of documents that had been retrieved specifically for each user's information need situation. Users were asked to mark the portions of the documents representations or of the full text of documents that indicated to the users whether they would or would not pursue the information within documents. An open-ended interview technique was then employed to discuss each marked portion with users. The interviews were audiotaped, the tapes transcribed, and the transcriptions were content analyzed in order to identify and describe evaluation criteria. The results indicate that the criteria employed by users included tangilble characteristics of documents (e.g., the information content of the document, the provision of references to other sources of information), subjective qualities (e.g., agreement with the information provided by the document) and situational factors (e.g., the time constraints under which the user was working). The implications of this research for our understanding of the concept of relevance, and for the design and evaluation of information retrieval systems, are discussed

0.013037993 = product of:
  0.05215197 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 97) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=97,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 97, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=97)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this study we explored the use of logfiles as a window into the process of hypermedia navigation. Although there is a growing body of research addressing theoretical and design issues related to open-ended, non-directive technologies such as hypermedia, relatively few studies have attempted to explain navigational performance. 66 undergraduate students used a multidimensional, computer-based kiosk that could be explored in a nonlinear fashion to find information in response to one of two information retrieval tasks (simple or complex). Cluster analysis was used to generate performance profiles derived from navigational data captured in log files. Analyses of within cluster performance profiles, combined with external validation criteria, led to the classification of 4 different types of navigational performance (models users, disenchanted volunteers, feature explorers, and cyber cartographers). These characterizations were consistent with information retrieval users and the external criteria (self-efficacy, perceived utility, and interest). For example, individual who appeared to fake the time to learn the layout of the kiosk also had the highest self-efficacy, while those who used the help screen and watched the most movies had the lowest self-efficacy. Results also demonstrated an interaction between various individual navigational profiles and type information retrieval task

0.013037993 = product of:
  0.05215197 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Meho and Tibbo show that the Ellis model of information seeking applies to a web environment by way of a replication of his study in this case using behavior of social science faculty studying stateless nations, a group diverse in skills, origins, and research specialities. Data were collected by way of e-mail interviews. Material on stateless nations was limited to papers in English on social science topics published between 1998 and 2000. Of these 251 had 212 unique authors identified as academic scholars and had sufficient information to provide e-mail addresses. Of the 139 whose addresses were located, 9 who were physically close were reserved for face to face interviews, and of the remainder 60 agreed to participate and responded to the 25 open ended question interview. Follow up questions generated a 75% response. Of the possible face to face interviews five agreed to participate and provided 26 thousand words as opposed to 69 thousand by the 45 e-mail participants. The activities of the Ellis model are confirmed but four additional activities are also identified. These are accessing, i.e. finding the material identified in indirect sources of information; networking, or the maintaining of close contacts with a wide range of colleagues and other human sources; verifying, i.e. checking the accuracy of new information; and information managing, the filing and organizing of collected information. All activities are grouped into four stages searching, accessing, processing, and ending.

0.013037993 = product of:
  0.05215197 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 1824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=1824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1824)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since the adoption of faceted search in a small number of academic libraries in 2006, faceted search interfaces have gained popularity in academic and public libraries. This article clarifies whether faceted search improves the interactions between searchers and library catalogs and sheds light on ways that facets are used during a library search. To study searchers' behaviors in natural situations, we collected from the servers a data set with more than 1.5 million useful search logs. Logs were parsed, statistically analyzed, and manually studied using visualization tools to gain a general understanding of how facets are used in the search process. A user experiment with 24 subjects was conducted to further understand contextual information, such as the searchers' motivations and perceptions. The results indicate that most searchers were able to understand the concept of facets naturally and easily. The faceted search was not able to shorten the search time but was able to improve the search accuracy. Facets were used more for open-ended tasks and difficult tasks that require more effort to learn, investigate, and explore. Overall, the results weaved a detailed "story" about the ways that people use facets and the ways that facets help people use library catalogs.

0.012216322 = product of:
  0.04886529 = sum of:
    0.04886529 = sum of:
      0.023635827 = weight(_text_:access in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023635827 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.025229463 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025229463 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, 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=3231)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

ADEPT is a 5-year project whose goals are to develop, deploy, and evaluate inquiry learning capabilities for the Alexandria Digital Library, an extant digital library of primary sources in geography. We interviewed nine geography faculty members who teach undergraduate courses about their information seeking for research and teaching and their use of information resources in teaching. These data were supplemented by interviews with four faculty members from another ADEPT study about the nature of knowledge in geography. Among our key findings are that geography faculty are more likely to encounter useful teaching resources while seeking research resources than vice versa, although the influence goes in both directions. Their greatest information needs are for research data, maps, and images. They desire better searching by concept or theme, in addition to searching by location and place name. They make extensive use of their own research resources in their teaching. Among the implications for functionality and architecture of geographic digital libraries for educational use are that personal digital libraries are essential, because individual faculty members have personalized approaches to selecting, collecting, and organizing teaching resources. Digital library services for research and teaching should include the ability to import content from common office software and to store content in standard formats that can be exported to other applications. Digital library services can facilitate sharing among faculty but cannot overcome barriers such as intellectual property rights, access to proprietary research data, or the desire of individuals to maintain control over their own resources. Faculty use of primary and secondary resources needs to be better understood if we are to design successful digital libraries for research and teaching.

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22

0.0118179135 = product of:
  0.047271654 = sum of:
    0.047271654 = product of:
      0.09454331 = sum of:
        0.09454331 = weight(_text_:access in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09454331 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5991719 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0118179135 = product of:
  0.047271654 = sum of:
    0.047271654 = product of:
      0.09454331 = sum of:
        0.09454331 = weight(_text_:access in 501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09454331 = score(doc=501,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5991719 = fieldWeight in 501, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=501)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)