Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02435904 = product of:
  0.04871808 = sum of:
    0.04871808 = product of:
      0.09743616 = sum of:
        0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 6890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09743616 = score(doc=6890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 6890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How postings information is used for inverted file searching was investigated by comparing searches, made by postgraduate students at the Dept. of Information Studies, of the LISA database on CD-ROM with and without postings information. Performance (the number of relevant references, precision and recall) was not significantly different but searches with postings information took more time, and more sets were viewed, than in searches without postings. Postings information was used to make decisions to narrow or broaden the search; to view or print the references. The same techniques were used to amend searches whether or not postings information was available. Users decided that a search was satisfactory on the basis of the search results, and consequently many searches done without postings were still considered satisfactory. However, searchers thought that the lack of postings information had affected 90% of their searches. Differences in search performance and searching behaviour were found in participants who were shown to have different learning styles using the Witkin's Embedded Figures test and the Lancaster Short Inventory of Approaches to Learning Test. These differences were, in part, explained by the differences in behaviour indicated by their learning styles

0.02435904 = product of:
  0.04871808 = sum of:
    0.04871808 = product of:
      0.09743616 = sum of:
        0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09743616 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of an investigation, undertaken at Sheffield University, Departmant of Information Studies, UK into the effects of postings information (the display on the screen of the number of references in the retrieved sets) on searching behaviour. Linked online searches were conducted, on the LISA database on CD-ROM, with and without postings information. Performance in terms of the number of relevant references, precision and recall was not significantly different whether postings information was available or not; but searches with postings information took more time and more sets were viewed than in searches without postings. Searchers thought that the lack of postings information had affected 90% of their searches. Proposes that training should place greater emphasis on the value of postings information at different stages of the search and should optimize the searching behaviour of those with different searching styles

0.017225077 = product of:
  0.034450155 = sum of:
    0.034450155 = product of:
      0.06890031 = sum of:
        0.06890031 = weight(_text_:22 in 4342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06890031 = score(doc=4342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4342, 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=4342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 1.2000 13:16:22

0.017225077 = product of:
  0.034450155 = sum of:
    0.034450155 = product of:
      0.06890031 = sum of:
        0.06890031 = weight(_text_:22 in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06890031 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3341, 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=3341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:45:48

0.010335046 = product of:
  0.020670092 = sum of:
    0.020670092 = product of:
      0.041340183 = sum of:
        0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041340183 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92