Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03157078 = product of:
  0.07892695 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
    0.038578555 = product of:
      0.057867832 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 248, 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=248)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Researchers are producing an unprecedented deluge of data by using new methods and instrumentation. Others may wish to mine these data for new discoveries and innovations. However, research data are not readily available as sharing is common in only a few fields such as astronomy and genomics. Data sharing practices in other fields vary widely. Moreover, research data take many forms, are handled in many ways, using many approaches, and often are difficult to interpret once removed from their initial context. Data sharing is thus a conundrum. Four rationales for sharing data are examined, drawing examples from the sciences, social sciences, and humanities: (1) to reproduce or to verify research, (2) to make results of publicly funded research available to the public, (3) to enable others to ask new questions of extant data, and (4) to advance the state of research and innovation. These rationales differ by the arguments for sharing, by beneficiaries, and by the motivations and incentives of the many stakeholders involved. The challenges are to understand which data might be shared, by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why, and to what effects. Answers will inform data policy and practice.

Date

11. 6.2012 15:22:29

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 6895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=6895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 6895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6895)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.013047772 = product of:
  0.06523886 = sum of:
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 2725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=2725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 2725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2725)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.013047772 = product of:
  0.06523886 = sum of:
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 2756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=2756,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 2756, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2756)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 1) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=1,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 1, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Libraries are an essential component of a nation's information infrastructure, yet often they are invisible to their users and other stakeholders. In the context of this special issue, the paper presents four challenges faced by libraries and proposes research designs to address each of them. The four challenges involve: 1. invisible infrastructure, 2. content and collections, 3. preservation and access, and 4. institutional boundaries. I propose a mixture of research methods that includes surveys, case studies, documentary analyses, and policy analyses. Only with a better understanding of these challenges can libraries find their best fit in the information infrastructure of our networked world.

0.00968546 = product of:
  0.048427295 = sum of:
    0.048427295 = weight(_text_:system in 3825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048427295 = score(doc=3825,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 3825, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3825)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports on a continuing project to study children's search behaviour on an automated library catalogue designed for children, called the Science Library Catalog. This experiment exployed an advanced version of the system which combines the browsing features of earlier versions with keyword capabilities that do not require correct spelling, searching alphabetical lists, or using Boolean logic. 5th grade children are able to use browsing and keyword searchs trategies successfully, relying on browsing to familiarize themselves with the system and graduating to keyword methods after they are comfortable with the system. Children's level of science domian knowledge was found to influence both their success in finding books and their search behaviour, with children with high domain knowledge finding books more successfully and utilizing more keyword and mixed search methgods. Results contribute to understanding of the factors affecting children's search behaviour

0.009319837 = product of:
  0.046599183 = sum of:
    0.046599183 = weight(_text_:system in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046599183 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3479797 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports on a continuing project to study children's use of a graphically-based direct manipulation interface for science materials. The Science Library Catalogue (SLC), a component of project SEED, has been implemented in the libraries of 21 elementary schools in Los Angeles and will soon be implemented in a public library. The interface employs a hierarchical structure drawn from the DDC and implemented in HyperCard on the Macintosh. The study on the 2nd version of the interface indicates that children are able to use the Science Library Catalogue unaided, with reasonable success in finding items. Search success on the same topics on a Boolean command driven system was equivalent, but Boolean searches were faster. However, the Boolean system was more sensitive to differences in age, with 12-year-olds having significantly better success rates than 10-year-olds; and to search topic, with one set of questions being much easier to search than the other. On average, children liked the 2 systems about the same; the Boolean system was more attractive to certain age and gender combinations, while the Science Library Catalogue was more consistently liked across groups. results are compared to prior studies on the Science Library Catalogue and other online catalogues

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

When developing university-based research data curation services, libraries face critical decisions around organization and sustainability that can affect dataset producers' satisfaction with these services. We present a study, involving interviews (n = 43) and ethnographic observation, of how two libraries partnered with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to curate a significant astronomy dataset. Each library took different decisions: one library assigned activities to a unit specializing in digital curation, while the other distributed activities across its existing units. Neither approach proved a silver bullet. While library staff members felt the outcomes largely met their expectations, SDSS leaders expressed mixed opinions. We identify three factors that contributed to these differences in perspective: differing strategic motivations for undertaking this Data Transfer Process, SDSS leaders' misperceptions about libraries, and organizational mismatches. These factors contributed to four differences in perspective between SDSS leaders and library staff: provenance as technical information or as information about social context, dataset as a live research object or as a static object to be preserved, systems and services tailored to the dataset or easily adaptable to other datasets, and obstacles as setbacks or as opportunities. Only those differences that emerged when SDSS collaboration members and library staff communicated frequently were resolved.

0.007908144 = product of:
  0.03954072 = sum of:
    0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954072 = score(doc=813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 813, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=813)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The project online access to knowledge (OAK) has developed a computer intermediary for delected users of the Department of Energy's DOE/RECON and BASIS online information retrieval systems. Its purpose is to enable people who have little or no training or experience in bibliographic searching to conduct their own searches, without the assistance of a trained librarian. hence permitting the user to work in both a place and time of his or her choosing. The purpose of this article is to report on the design and the rationale for the design. OAK software consists of both a tutorial and an assistance program. The latter does not employ a command language, hence obviates the need for a searcher to learn the formal language usually associated with an online database search service. It is central to our approach that this system does not supplant the user's ultimate primacy in knowing what he or she is looking for, nor in judging the results

0.007908144 = product of:
  0.03954072 = sum of:
    0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954072 = score(doc=2281,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Research in user behavior on online catalogs is in its early stages, but preliminary findings suggest that users encounter many of the same problems identified in behavioral studies of other types of bibliographic retrieval systems. Much can be learned from comparing the results of user behavior studies on these two types of systems. Research on user problems with both the mechanical aspects and the conceptual aspects of system use is reviewed, with the conclusion that more similiratiy exists across types of systems in conceptual than in mechanical problems. Also discussed are potential sources of the problems, due either to individual characteristics or to system variables. A series of research questions is proposed and a number of potential interim solutions ae suggested for alleviating some of the problems encountered by users of information systems

0.00745587 = product of:
  0.03727935 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 4380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=4380,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 4380, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4380)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We return to arguments made 10 years ago that online catalogs are difficult to use because their design does not incorporate sufficient understanding of searching behavior. The earlier article examined studies of information retrieval system searching for their implications for online catalog design; this article examines the implications of card catalog design for online catalogs. With this analysis, we hope to contribute to a better understanding of user behavior and to lay to rest the card catalog design model for online catalogs. We discuss the problems with query matching systems, which were designed for skilled search intermediaries rather than end-users, and the knowledge and skills they require in the information-seeking process, illustrated with examples of searching card and online catalogs. Searching requires conceptual knowledge of the information retrieval process - translating an information need into a searchable query; semantic knowledge of how to implement a query in a given system - the how and when to use system features; and technical skills in executing the query - basic computing skills and the syntax of entering queries as specific search statements. In the short term, we can help make online catalogs easier to use through improved training and documentation that is based on information-seeking bahavior, with the caveat that good training is not a substitute for good system design. Our long term goal should be to design intuitive systems that require a minimum of instruction. Given the complexity of the information retrieval problem and the limited capabilities of today's systems, we are far from achieving that goal. If libraries are to provide primary information services for the networked world, they need to put research results on the information-seeking process into practice in designing the next generation of online public access information retrieval systems

0.0054254006 = product of:
  0.027127001 = sum of:
    0.027127001 = product of:
      0.081381 = sum of:
        0.081381 = weight(_text_:29 in 7685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081381 = score(doc=7685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 7685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7685)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.29-44

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=2591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

As we seek both to improve public school education in high technology areas and to link libraries and classrooms on the 'information superhighway', we need to understand more about children's information searching abilities. We present results of 4 experiments conducted on 4 versions of the Science Library Catalog (SLC), a Dewey Decimal based hierarchical browsing systems implemeted in HyperCard without a keyboard. The experiments were conducted over a 3-year period at 3 sites, with 4 databases, and with comparisons to 2 different keyword online catalogs. Subjects were ethnically and culturally diverse children aged 9 through 12; with 32 to 34 children participating in each experiment. Children were provided explicit instruction and reference materials for the keyword systems but not for the SLC. The number of search topics matched was comparable across all systems and all experiments; search times were comparable, thought hey varied among the 4 SLC versions and between the 2 keyword OPACs. The SLC overall was robust to differences in age, sex and computer experience. One of the keyword OPACs was subject to minor effects of age and computer experience; the other was not. We found relationships between search topic and system structure, such that the most difficult topics on the SLC were those hard to locate in the hierarchy, and those most difficult on the keyword OPACs were hard to spell or required children to generate their own search terms. The SLC approach overcomes problems with several searching features that are difficult for children in typical keyword OPAC systems; typing skills, spelling, vocabulary, and Boolean logic. Results have general implications for the desing of information retrieval systems for children

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=4385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Searching information retrieval systems is a highly interactive, iterative process that cannot be understood simply by comparing the output of a search session (the 'search product') to a query stated in advance. In this article, we examine evaluation goals and methods for studying information retrieval behavior, drawing examples from our own research and that of others. We limit our review to research that employs online monitoring, also known as transaction log analysis. Online monitoring is one of few methods that can capture detailed data on the search process at a reasonable cost; these data can be used to build quantitative models or to support qualitative interpretations of quatitative results. Monitoring is a data collection technique rather than a research design, and can be employed in experimental of field studies, whether alone or combined with other data collection methods. Based on the the research questions of interest, the researcher must determine what variables to collect from each data source, which to treat as independent varaibles to manipulate, and which to treat as dependent variables to observe effects. Studies of searching behavior often treat search task and searcher characteristics as independent variables and may manipulate other independent variables specific to the research questions addressed. Search outcomes, time, and search paths frequently are treated as dependent variables. We discuss each of these sets of variables, illustrating them with sample results from the literature and from our own research. Our examples are drawn from the Science Library Catalog project, a 7-year study of children's searching behavior on an experimental retrieval system. We close with a brief discussion of the implications of these results for the design of information retrieval systems

0.0023042548 = product of:
  0.011521274 = sum of:
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 5507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=5507,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5507, 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=5507)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.2, S.121-127

0.0019202124 = product of:
  0.009601062 = sum of:
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=5325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5325, 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=5325)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 7.2019 11:58:22

0.0015501144 = product of:
  0.0077505717 = sum of:
    0.0077505717 = product of:
      0.023251714 = sum of:
        0.023251714 = weight(_text_:29 in 2785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023251714 = score(doc=2785,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2785, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2785)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

14.10.2013 19:29:54

0.0015361699 = product of:
  0.0076808496 = sum of:
    0.0076808496 = product of:
      0.023042548 = sum of:
        0.023042548 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023042548 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22