Search (475 results, page 1 of 24)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Saracevic, T.: Individual differences in organizing, searching and retrieving information (1991) 0.09
    0.08855388 = product of:
      0.1475898 = sum of:
        0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00770594 = score(doc=3692,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
        0.12725374 = weight(_text_:91 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12725374 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.49251786 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
        0.012630116 = product of:
          0.025260232 = sum of:
            0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025260232 = score(doc=3692,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    Synthesises the major findings of several decades of research into the magnitude of individual deffirences in information retrieval related tasks and suggests implications for practice and design. The study is related to a series of studies of human aspects and cognitive decision making in information seeking, searching and retrieving
    Imprint
    Medford : Learned Information Inc.
    Source
    ASIS'91: systems understanding people. Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, vol.28, Washington, DC, 27.-31.10.1991. Ed.: J.-M. Griffiths
    Type
    a
  2. Wildemuth, B.M.; Jacob, E.K.; Fullington, A.;; Bliek, R. de; Friedman, C.P.: ¬A detailed analysis of end-user search behaviours (1991) 0.06
    0.055494484 = product of:
      0.0924908 = sum of:
        0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009010308 = score(doc=2423,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
        0.079533584 = weight(_text_:91 in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079533584 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.30782366 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
        0.003946911 = product of:
          0.007893822 = sum of:
            0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007893822 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2423, 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=2423)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6 = coord(3/5)
    
    Abstract
    Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users
    Imprint
    Medford : Learned Information Inc.
    Source
    ASIS'91: systems understanding people. Proc. of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ASIS, vol.28, Washington, DC, 27.-31.10.1991. Ed.: J.-M. Griffiths
    Type
    a
  3. Keen, E.M.: Aspects of computer-based indexing languages (1991) 0.05
    0.053983875 = product of:
      0.13495968 = sum of:
        0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 5072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00770594 = score(doc=5072,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5072, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5072)
        0.12725374 = weight(_text_:91 in 5072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12725374 = score(doc=5072,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25837386 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.49251786 = fieldWeight in 5072, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5722036 = idf(docFreq=456, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5072)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Comments on the relative rarity of research articles on theoretical aspects of subject indexing in computerised retrieval systems and the predominance of articles on software packages and hardware. Concludes that controlled indexing still has a future but points to major differences from the past
    Source
    Computers in libraries international 91. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Computers in Libraries, London, February 1991
    Type
    a
  4. Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990) 0.05
    0.049415957 = product of:
      0.123539895 = sum of:
        0.013485395 = weight(_text_:a in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013485395 = score(doc=5089,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
        0.1100545 = sum of:
          0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.022102704 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
          0.087951794 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.087951794 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:43:54
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.4, S.272-281
    Type
    a
  5. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.05
    0.047836047 = product of:
      0.11959012 = sum of:
        0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009535614 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
        0.1100545 = sum of:
          0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.022102704 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
          0.087951794 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.087951794 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.3-36
    Type
    a
  6. Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983) 0.04
    0.039920058 = product of:
      0.09980014 = sum of:
        0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009632425 = score(doc=2417,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
        0.090167716 = sum of:
          0.027345007 = weight(_text_:information in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027345007 = score(doc=2417,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
          0.06282271 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.06282271 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, 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=2417)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Pages
    S.22-25
    Series
    Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol. 20
    Source
    Productivity in the information age : proceedings of the 46th ASIS annual meeting, 1983. Ed.: Raymond F Vondra
    Type
    a
  7. Smithson, S.: Information retrieval evaluation in practice : a case study approach (1994) 0.03
    0.030245686 = product of:
      0.075614214 = sum of:
        0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009535614 = score(doc=7302,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
        0.0660786 = sum of:
          0.022102704 = weight(_text_:information in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.022102704 = score(doc=7302,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
          0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043975897 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7302, 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=7302)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The evaluation of information retrieval systems is an important yet difficult operation. This paper describes an exploratory evaluation study that takes an interpretive approach to evaluation. The longitudinal study examines evaluation through the information-seeking behaviour of 22 case studies of 'real' users. The eclectic approach to data collection produced behavioral data that is compared with relevance judgements and satisfaction ratings. The study demonstrates considerable variations among the cases, among different evaluation measures within the same case, and among the same measures at different stages within a single case. It is argued that those involved in evaluation should be aware of the difficulties, and base any evaluation on a good understanding of the cases in question
    Source
    Information processing and management. 30(1994) no.2, S.205-221
    Type
    a
  8. Losee, R.M.: Determining information retrieval and filtering performance without experimentation (1995) 0.03
    0.029511416 = product of:
      0.07377854 = sum of:
        0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010661141 = score(doc=3368,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
        0.0631174 = sum of:
          0.019141505 = weight(_text_:information in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.019141505 = score(doc=3368,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
          0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043975897 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3368, 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=3368)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The performance of an information retrieval or text and media filtering system may be determined through analytic methods as well as by traditional simulation or experimental methods. These analytic methods can provide precise statements about expected performance. They can thus determine which of 2 similarly performing systems is superior. For both a single query terms and for a multiple query term retrieval model, a model for comparing the performance of different probabilistic retrieval methods is developed. This method may be used in computing the average search length for a query, given only knowledge of database parameter values. Describes predictive models for inverse document frequency, binary independence, and relevance feedback based retrieval and filtering. Simulation illustrate how the single term model performs and sample performance predictions are given for single term and multiple term problems
    Date
    22. 2.1996 13:14:10
    Source
    Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.4, S.555-572
    Type
    a
  9. Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996) 0.03
    0.029427508 = product of:
      0.07356877 = sum of:
        0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005448922 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
        0.06811985 = sum of:
          0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017861681 = score(doc=6971,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
          0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.050258167 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, 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=6971)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  10. Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997) 0.03
    0.029427508 = product of:
      0.07356877 = sum of:
        0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005448922 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
        0.06811985 = sum of:
          0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017861681 = score(doc=744,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
          0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.050258167 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  11. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.03
    0.028930439 = product of:
      0.072326094 = sum of:
        0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009437811 = score(doc=261,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
        0.06288828 = sum of:
          0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.012630116 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
          0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.050258167 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Die deutschen Suchmaschinen, Abacho, Acoon, Fireball und Lycos sowie die Web-Kataloge Web.de und Yahoo! werden einem Qualitätstest nach relativem Recall, Precision und Availability unterzogen. Die Methoden der Retrievaltests werden vorgestellt. Im Durchschnitt werden bei einem Cut-Off-Wert von 25 ein Recall von rund 22%, eine Precision von knapp 19% und eine Verfügbarkeit von 24% erreicht
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 52(2001) H.7, S.381-392
    Type
    a
  12. Crestani, F.; Rijsbergen, C.J. van: Information retrieval by imaging (1996) 0.03
    0.027205238 = product of:
      0.068013094 = sum of:
        0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009138121 = score(doc=6967,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
        0.058874972 = sum of:
          0.02118135 = weight(_text_:information in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02118135 = score(doc=6967,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
          0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037693623 = score(doc=6967,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6967, 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=6967)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Explains briefly what constitutes the imaging process and explains how imaging can be used in information retrieval. Proposes an approach based on the concept of: 'a term is a possible world'; which enables the exploitation of term to term relationships which are estimated using an information theoretic measure. Reports results of an evaluation exercise to compare the performance of imaging retrieval, using possible world semantics, with a benchmark and using the Cranfield 2 document collection to measure precision and recall. Initially, the performance imaging retrieval was seen to be better but statistical analysis proved that the difference was not significant. The problem with imaging retrieval lies in the amount of computations needed to be performed at run time and a later experiement investigated the possibility of reducing this amount. Notes lines of further investigation
    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
    Type
    a
  13. Blagden, J.F.: How much noise in a role-free and link-free co-ordinate indexing system? (1966) 0.03
    0.027056674 = product of:
      0.06764168 = sum of:
        0.012614433 = weight(_text_:a in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012614433 = score(doc=2718,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
        0.05502725 = sum of:
          0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.011051352 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2718, 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=2718)
          0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043975897 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2718, 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=2718)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A study of the number of irrelevant documents retrieved in a co-ordinate indexing system that does not employ eitherr roles or links. These tests were based on one hundred actual inquiries received in the library and therefore an evaluation of recall efficiency is not included. Over half the enquiries produced no noise, but the mean average percentage niose figure was approximately 33 per cent based on a total average retireval figure of eighteen documents per search. Details of the size of the indexed collection, methods of indexing, and an analysis of the reasons for the retrieval of irrelevant documents are discussed, thereby providing information officers who are thinking of installing such a system with some evidence on which to base a decision as to whether or not to utilize these devices
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 22(1966), S.203-209
    Type
    a
  14. Hodges, P.R.: Keyword in title indexes : effectiveness of retrieval in computer searches (1983) 0.03
    0.026539028 = product of:
      0.06634757 = sum of:
        0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067426977 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
        0.05960487 = sum of:
          0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.015628971 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
          0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043975897 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.
    Date
    14. 3.1996 13:22:21
    Type
    a
  15. Blair, D.C.: STAIRS Redux : thoughts on the STAIRS evaluation, ten years after (1996) 0.03
    0.02574907 = product of:
      0.06437267 = sum of:
        0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004767807 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
        0.05960487 = sum of:
          0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.015628971 = score(doc=3002,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
          0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043975897 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3002, 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=3002)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The test of retrieval effectiveness performed on IBM's STAIRS and reported in 'Communications of the ACM' 10 years ago, continues to be cited frequently in the information retrieval literature. The reasons for the study's continuing pertinence to today's research are discussed, and the political, legal, and commercial aspects of the study are presented. In addition, the method of calculating recall that was used in the STAIRS study is discussed in some detail, especially how it reduces the 5 major types of uncertainty in recall estimations. It is also suggested that this method of recall estimation may serve as the basis for recall estimations that might be truly comparable between systems
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.4-22
    Type
    a
  16. Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.: Why full-text misses some relevant documents : an analysis of documents not retrieved by CCML or MEDIS (1989) 0.02
    0.024967303 = product of:
      0.062418256 = sum of:
        0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005779455 = score(doc=3564,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
        0.0566388 = sum of:
          0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.018945174 = score(doc=3564,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
          0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037693623 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, 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=3564)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Searches conducted as part of the MEDLINE/Full-Text Research Project revealed that the full-text data bases of clinical medical journal articles (CCML (Comprehensive Core Medical Library) from BRS Information Technologies, and MEDIS from Mead Data Central) did not retrieve all the relevant citations. An analysis of the data indicated that 204 relevant citations were retrieved only by MEDLINE. A comparison of the strategies used on the full-text data bases with the text of the articles of these 204 citations revealed that 2 reasons contributed to these failure. The searcher often constructed a restrictive strategy which resulted in the loss of relevant documents; and as in other kinds of retrieval, the problems of natural language caused the loss of relevant documents.
    Date
    9. 1.1996 10:22:31
    Imprint
    Medford, New Jersey : Learned Information
    Source
    ASIS'89. Managing information and technology. Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Washington D.C., 30.10.-2.11.1989. Vol.26. Ed.by J. Katzer and G.B. Newby
  17. Brown, M.E.: By any other name : accounting for failure in the naming of subject categories (1995) 0.02
    0.024707979 = product of:
      0.061769947 = sum of:
        0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067426977 = score(doc=5598,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
        0.05502725 = sum of:
          0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.011051352 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5598, 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=5598)
          0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043975897 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5598, 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=5598)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Research shows that 65-80% of subject search terms fail to match the appropriate subject heading and one third to one half of subject searches result in no references being retrieved. Examines the subject search terms geberated by 82 school and college students in Princeton, NJ, evaluated the match between the named terms and the expected subject headings, proposes an explanation for match failures in relation to 3 invariant properties common to all search terms: concreteness, complexity, and syndeticity. Suggests that match failure is a consequence of developmental naming patterns and that these patterns can be overcome through the use of metacognitive naming skills
    Date
    2.11.1996 13:08:22
    Source
    Library and information science research. 17(1995) no.4, S.347-385
    Type
    a
  18. Petrelli, D.: On the role of user-centred evaluation in the advancement of interactive information retrieval (2008) 0.02
    0.024522701 = product of:
      0.061306752 = sum of:
        0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009010308 = score(doc=2026,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
        0.052296445 = sum of:
          0.020885091 = weight(_text_:information in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.020885091 = score(doc=2026,freq=14.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.256578 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
                3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                  14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
          0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.031411353 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38
    Type
    a
  19. Belkin, N.J.: ¬An overview of results from Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval (1998) 0.02
    0.02447601 = product of:
      0.061190024 = sum of:
        0.0048162127 = weight(_text_:a in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0048162127 = score(doc=2339,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
        0.056373812 = sum of:
          0.02496246 = weight(_text_:information in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02496246 = score(doc=2339,freq=20.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.30666938 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
                4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                  20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
          0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.031411353 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science
    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
    Type
    a
  20. Wood, F.; Ford, N.; Miller, D.; Sobczyk, G.; Duffin, R.: Information skills, searching behaviour and cognitive styles for student-centred learning : a computer-assisted learning approach (1996) 0.02
    0.024471594 = product of:
      0.061178982 = sum of:
        0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007078358 = score(doc=4341,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
        0.054100625 = sum of:
          0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.016407004 = score(doc=4341,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
          0.037693623 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037693623 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4341, 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=4341)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Undergraduates were tested to establish how they searched databases, the effectiveness of their searches and their satisfaction with them. The students' cognitive and learning styles were determined by the Lancaster Approaches to Studying Inventory and Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis tests. There were significant differences in the searching behaviour and the effectiveness of the searches carried out by students with different learning and cognitive styles. Computer-assisted learning (CAL) packages were developed for three departments. The effectiveness of the packages were evaluated. Significant differences were found in the ways students with different learning styles used the packages. Based on the experience gained, guidelines for the teaching of information skills and the production and use of packages were prepared. About 2/3 of the searches had serious weaknesses, indicating a need for effective training. It appears that choice of searching strategies, search effectiveness and use of CAL packages are all affected by the cognitive and learning styles of the searcher. Therefore, students should be made aware of their own styles and, if appropriate, how to adopt more effective strategies
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92
    Type
    a

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 443
  • s 14
  • el 10
  • m 9
  • r 6
  • x 3
  • p 2
  • d 1
  • More… Less…