Search (65 results, page 1 of 4)

0.041721575 = product of:
  0.1668863 = sum of:
    0.1668863 = weight(_text_:open in 6204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1668863 = score(doc=6204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.79606104 = fieldWeight in 6204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6204)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Open. 17(1985), no.12, S.542-546

0.041721575 = product of:
  0.1668863 = sum of:
    0.1668863 = weight(_text_:open in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1668863 = score(doc=416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.79606104 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Open. 21(1989) nos.7/8, S.261-264

0.029501611 = product of:
  0.118006445 = sum of:
    0.118006445 = weight(_text_:open in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118006445 = score(doc=43,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5629002 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present the TREC Open Search track, which represents a new evaluation paradigm for information retrieval. It offers the possibility for researchers to evaluate their approaches in a live setting, with real, unsuspecting users of an existing search engine. The first edition of the track focuses on the academic search domain and features the ad-hoc scientific literature search task. We report on experiments with three different academic search engines: Cite-SeerX, SSOAR, and Microsoft Academic Search.

0.024432644 = product of:
  0.09773058 = sum of:
    0.09773058 = sum of:
      0.047271654 = weight(_text_:access in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047271654 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 744, 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=744)
      0.050458927 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050458927 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

TREC ia an annual conference held in the USA devoted to electronic systems for large full text information searching. The conference deals with evaluation and comparison techniques developed since 1992 by participants from the research and industrial fields. The work of the conference is destined for designers (rather than users) of systems which access full text information. Describes the context, objectives, organization, evaluation methods and limits of TREC

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.015645592 = product of:
  0.062582366 = sum of:
    0.062582366 = weight(_text_:open in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062582366 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Answering open-domain factual questions requires Natural Language processing for refining document selection and answer identification. With our system QALC, we have participated in the Question Answering track of the TREC8, TREC9 and TREC10 evaluations. QALC performs an analysis of documents relying an multiword term searches and their linguistic variation both to minimize the number of documents selected and to provide additional clues when comparing question and sentence representations. This comparison process also makes use of the results of a syntactic parsing of the questions and Named Entity recognition functionalities. Answer extraction relies an the application of syntactic patterns chosen according to the kind of information that is sought, and categorized depending an the syntactic form of the question. These patterns allow QALC to handle nicely linguistic variations at the answer level.

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

0.015270403 = product of:
  0.06108161 = sum of:
    0.06108161 = sum of:
      0.029544784 = weight(_text_:access in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029544784 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
  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

0.015270403 = product of:
  0.06108161 = sum of:
    0.06108161 = sum of:
      0.029544784 = weight(_text_:access in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029544784 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
      0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03153683 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of user-centred evaluations as an essential method for researching interactive information retrieval. It draws mainly on the work carried out during the Clarity Project where different user-centred evaluations were run during the lifecycle of a cross-language information retrieval system. The iterative testing was not only instrumental to the development of a usable system, but it enhanced our knowledge of the potential, impact, and actual use of cross-language information retrieval technology. Indeed the role of the user evaluation was dual: by testing a specific prototype it was possible to gain a micro-view and assess the effectiveness of each component of the complex system; by cumulating the result of all the evaluations (in total 43 people were involved) it was possible to build a macro-view of how cross-language retrieval would impact on users and their tasks. By showing the richness of results that can be acquired, this paper aims at stimulating researchers into considering user-centred evaluations as a flexible, adaptable and comprehensive technique for investigating non-traditional information access systems.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38

0.01103789 = product of:
  0.04415156 = sum of:
    0.04415156 = product of:
      0.08830312 = sum of:
        0.08830312 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08830312 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.01103789 = product of:
  0.04415156 = sum of:
    0.04415156 = product of:
      0.08830312 = sum of:
        0.08830312 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08830312 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58

0.01103789 = product of:
  0.04415156 = sum of:
    0.04415156 = product of:
      0.08830312 = sum of:
        0.08830312 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08830312 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

11. 8.2001 16:22:19

0.01103789 = product of:
  0.04415156 = sum of:
    0.04415156 = product of:
      0.08830312 = sum of:
        0.08830312 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08830312 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:43:54

0.010430394 = product of:
  0.041721575 = sum of:
    0.041721575 = weight(_text_:open in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041721575 = score(doc=6606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 6606, 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=6606)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In most information retrieval research, the concept of relevance has been defined a priori as a single variable by the researcher and the meaning of relevance to the end-user who is making relevance judgments has not been taken into account. However, a number of criteria that users employ in making relevance judgments has been identified (Schamher, 1991; Barry, 1993). Understanding these criteria and their importance to end-users can help researchers better understand end-user evaluation behavior. This study reports end-users' ratings of the relative importance of 40 relevance criteria as used in their own information-seeking situations, and examines relationships between criteria that they rated most important. Data were collected from 210 graduate students who were instructed in a mail survey to rate 40 relevance criteria by importance in their selection of the most valuable information source for a recent or current paper or project. The criteria were selected from previous studies in which open-ended interviews were used to elicit criteria from end-users making judgments in their own information-seeking situations (Schamher, 1991; Su, 1992; Barry, 1993). A model of relevance with three constructs that contribute to the concept of relevance was proposed using the eleven criteria that survey respondents rated as most important (75 or more on a scale of 0 to 100). The development of this model was guided by similarities in criteria and criteria groupings from previous research (Barry & Schamher, 1998). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to confirm the model and verify that the constructs would produce reliable subscale scores. The three constructs are information quality, information credibility, and information completeness. Second-order factor analysis indicated that these constructs explain 48% of positive relevance judgments for these respondents. Three additional constructs, information availability, information topicality, and information currency are also suggested. The constructs developed from this analysis are thought to underlie the concept of relevance for this group of users

0.010430394 = product of:
  0.041721575 = sum of:
    0.041721575 = weight(_text_:open in 840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041721575 = score(doc=840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 840, 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=840)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.010430394 = product of:
  0.041721575 = sum of:
    0.041721575 = weight(_text_:open in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041721575 = score(doc=841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 841, 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=841)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to examine our current knowledge of how searchers perceive and react to the possibility of missing potentially important information whilst searching the web is limited. The study reported here seeks to investigate such perceptions and reactions, and to explore the extent to which Simon's "bounded rationality" theory is useful in illuminating these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Totally 37 academic staff, research staff and research students in three university departments were interviewed about their web searching. The open-ended, semi-structured interviews were inductively analysed. Emergence of the concept of "good enough" searching prompted a further analysis to explore the extent to which the data could be interpreted in terms of Simon's concepts of "bounded rationality" and "satisficing". Findings - The results indicate that the risk of missing potentially important information was a matter of concern to the interviewees. Their estimations of the likely extent and importance of missed information affected decisions by individuals as to when to stop searching - decisions based on very different criteria, which map well onto Simon's concepts. On the basis of the interview data, the authors propose tentative categorizations of perceptions of the risk of missing information including "inconsequential" "tolerable" "damaging" and "disastrous" and search strategies including "perfunctory" "minimalist" "nervous" and "extensive". It is concluded that there is at least a prima facie case for bounded rationality and satisficing being considered as potentially useful concepts in our quest better to understand aspects of human information behaviour. Research limitations/implications - Although the findings are based on a relatively small sample and an exploratory qualitative analysis, it is argued that the study raises a number of interesting questions, and has implications for both the development of theory and practice in the areas of web searching and information literacy. Originality/value - The paper focuses on an aspect of web searching which has not to date been well explored. Whilst research has done much to illuminate searchers' perceptions of what they find on the web, we know relatively little of their perceptions of, and reactions to information that they fail to find. The study reported here provides some tentative models, based on empirical evidence, of these phenomena.

0.010430394 = product of:
  0.041721575 = sum of:
    0.041721575 = weight(_text_:open in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041721575 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 3706, 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=3706)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose Information from Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) is stored in different formats, in platforms that are not compatible, or even in independent networks. It would be helpful to have a well-defined methodology to allow for management data processing from a single site, so as to take advantage of the capacity to link disperse data found in different systems, platforms, sources and/or formats. Based on functionalities and materials of the VLIR project, the purpose of this paper is to present a model that provides for interoperability by means of semantic alignment techniques and metadata crosswalks, and facilitates the fusion of information stored in diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach After reviewing the state of the art regarding the diverse mechanisms for achieving semantic interoperability, the paper analyzes the following: the specific coverage of the data sets (type of data, thematic coverage and geographic coverage); the technical specifications needed to retrieve and analyze a distribution of the data set (format, protocol, etc.); the conditions of re-utilization (copyright and licenses); and the "dimensions" included in the data set as well as the semantics of these dimensions (the syntax and the taxonomies of reference). The semantic interoperability framework here presented implements semantic alignment and metadata crosswalk to convert information from three different systems (ABCD, Moodle and DSpace) to integrate all the databases in a single RDF file. Findings The paper also includes an evaluation based on the comparison - by means of calculations of recall and precision - of the proposed model and identical consultations made on Open Archives Initiative and SQL, in order to estimate its efficiency. The results have been satisfactory enough, due to the fact that the semantic interoperability facilitates the exact retrieval of information. Originality/value The proposed model enhances management of the syntactic and semantic interoperability of the CRIS system designed. In a real setting of use it achieves very positive results.

0.008955287 = product of:
  0.035821147 = sum of:
    0.035821147 = product of:
      0.071642295 = sum of:
        0.071642295 = weight(_text_:access in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071642295 = score(doc=2259,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.45403582 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

51 subject searches were performed in an online catalog containing about 4,5 million records. Their success was judges in terms of lists of items, known to be relevant to the various topics, compiled by subject specialists (faculty members or authors of articles in specialized encyclopedias). Many of the items known to be relevant were not retrieved, even in very broad searches that sometimes retrieved several hundred records, and very little could be done to make them retrievable within the constraints of present cataloging practice. Librarians should recognize that library catalogs, as now implemented, offer only the most primitive of subject access and should seek to develop different types of subject access tools. - Vgl auch Letter (B.H. Weinberg) in: LTRS 36(1992) S.123-124.

0.008955287 = product of:
  0.035821147 = sum of:
    0.035821147 = product of:
      0.071642295 = sum of:
        0.071642295 = weight(_text_:access in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071642295 = score(doc=2348,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.45403582 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An analysis of transaction logs from an academic library online catalog describes instances in which users have tried both controlled and uncontrolled (title keyword) vocabulary subject access during the same search session. Eight hypotheses were tested. Over 6.6% of all dial access search sessions contained both methods of subject access. Over 58% of the isolated sessions began with an uncontrolled vocabulary attempt. Over 76% contained only one vocabulary shift. On average, user persistence was greater during controlled vocabulary search logs, but search output was greater during uncontrolled vocabulary search logs. Several recommendations regarding catalog design and instruction are made.

0.007884207 = product of:
  0.03153683 = sum of:
    0.03153683 = product of:
      0.06307366 = sum of:
        0.06307366 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06307366 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 2.1999 20:55:22

0.007884207 = product of:
  0.03153683 = sum of:
    0.03153683 = product of:
      0.06307366 = sum of:
        0.06307366 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06307366 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 2.1999 20:59:22