Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

4.8788113E-4 = product of:
  0.0073182164 = sum of:
    0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 5258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053462577 = score(doc=5258,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5258, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5258)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 5258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=5258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5258)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

OLIVE, a transaction logging facility enhanced with online questionnaires, was used to collect data from users of public and academic library catalogues. The comparative analysis of subject searching behaviour focused on the role of browsing subject headings and brief references in search formulation. Opportunities for browsing are greatly constrained by indexing practices. It is suggested that a more integrated approach to pre-coordinate and post-coordinate searching would be more effective. The logging software has been developed for a number of commercial online catalogues including Geac, CLSI and LIBERTAS. The use of a diagnostic and monitoring tool in the evaluation of OPACs is advocated

Source

Program. 27(1993) no.3, S.269-280

4.7693148E-4 = product of:
  0.007153972 = sum of:
    0.004365201 = weight(_text_:in in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004365201 = score(doc=2766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
    0.0027887707 = weight(_text_:s in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027887707 = score(doc=2766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

An investigation of tools, techniques, and methods for the evaluation of interactive library catalogues is described, with emphasis on diagnostic methods and on use of the catalogue in a wider context of user information seeking behaviour. A front-end system (Olive) was developed to test verious enhancements of traditional transaction logging as a data-gathering technique for evaluation purposes. These include full-screen logging, pre- and post-search, online/offline, and in-search interactive questionnaires, search replys as well as talk-aloud. The extent of subject or hybrid searching activity as opposed to specific item searching is also highlighted

Source

Information processing and management. 27(1991) no.5, S.523-532

2.4088677E-4 = product of:
  0.0036133013 = sum of:
    0.0022047595 = weight(_text_:in in 5691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0022047595 = score(doc=5691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 5691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5691)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=5691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5691)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Source

Journal of documentation. 46(1990), S.318-338

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

7.512224E-5 = product of:
  0.002253667 = sum of:
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 6602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=6602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 6602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6602)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)

Source

Bulletin des bibliothèques de France. 36(1991) no.4, S.312,314-316