Search (421 results, page 1 of 22)

0.09489456 = product of:
  0.15815759 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=5243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
    0.055919025 = weight(_text_:system in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055919025 = score(doc=5243,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

By "recommending'' Furner refers to collaborative filtering where multiple user rankings of items are used to create a single new ranking for a user, or to a system itself generating rankings of items for its users. This would include document retrieval systems as a subset recommending systems in the second instance, but in the first would make document retrieval system and recommending system synonyms. Information seeking actions are classified either as evaluative (determining the worth of an item), recommending (expressing perceived worth), or informative (examining the content of an item). The task of the information retrieval system is to be to predict the particular ordering that the user would specify in a given context, given complete knowledge of the collection. Citations may be considered as the result of evaluative and recommending decisions by the author, and assigned index terms may be considered as the same sort of decisions by the indexer. The selection of relevant documents by a searcher from a list also involves evaluative and recommending decisions. This suggests that searchers should have the opportunity to bring multiple ranking techniques to bear.

0.08146942 = product of:
  0.20367354 = sum of:
    0.12911485 = weight(_text_:context in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12911485 = score(doc=1498,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.7326775 = fieldWeight in 1498, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1498)
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=1498,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 1498, 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=1498)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.07128575 = product of:
  0.17821437 = sum of:
    0.1129755 = weight(_text_:context in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1129755 = score(doc=2976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.64109284 = fieldWeight in 2976, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2976)
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=2976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 2976, 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=2976)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.0660977 = product of:
  0.16524424 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 3067, 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=3067)
    0.10875649 = weight(_text_:index in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10875649 = score(doc=3067,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 3067, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3067)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

There are many problems with subject access in online catalogues. One of the major problems is information overload. One kind of this occurs when the display consists of a lengthy segment of the subject index in which a single subject heading is followed by a bewildering array of subdivisons, qualifications and phrases. This problem can be alleviated by presenting the subject index in a summary form that the user can expand to provide more detail as appropriate. Such an approach could be realized within the context of a direct manipulation style of user interface. In particular, a manner of displaying information called 'fisheye views' could be applied to the subject index display

0.057116266 = product of:
  0.14279066 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 1492, 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=1492)
    0.08630291 = weight(_text_:system in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08630291 = score(doc=1492,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.6444675 = fieldWeight in 1492, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1492)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Planning for the next five years of the MELVYL system is described in the context of University of California information system planning. The palnning environment is outlined from which are derived the objectives for the continued growth of the MELVYL system. The technical evolution of the MELVYL system necessary to meet the objectives is also reviewed. Envisioned in this technical evolution is the conversion of the MELVYL system to a client/server architecture that includes a graphical interface. Future plans for the MELVYL system provide a basis for tackling the problems of fragmented databases and information overload. Four initiatives to alleviate these problems are briefly described

0.054240204 = product of:
  0.1356005 = sum of:
    0.107641 = weight(_text_:index in 1104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107641 = score(doc=1104,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 1104, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1104)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 1104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=1104,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1104, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1104)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Search index usage in a large university online catalog system over a six-year period (representing about 15,3 million searches) was investigated using transaction monitor data. Mathematical models of trends and patterns in the data were developed and tested using regression techniques. The results of the analyses show a consistent decline in the frequency of subject index use by online catalog users, with a corresponding increase in the frequency of title keyword searching. Significant annual patterns in index usage were also identified. Analysis of the transaction data, and related previous studies of online catalog users, suggest a number of factors contributing to the decline in subject search frequency. Chief among these factors are user difficulties in formulating subject queries with LCSH, leading to search failure, and the problem of "information overload" as database size increases. This article presents the models and results of the transaction log analysis, discusses the underlying problems with subject searching contributing to the observed decline, and reviews some proposed improvements to online catalog systems to aid in overcoming these problems

0.053394537 = product of:
  0.13348635 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
    0.061725687 = product of:
      0.09258853 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
        0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046085097 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, 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=1628)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports on a dramatic shift from subject to periodical title searching at Colorado University Libraries. States possible reasons for the change, examines problems encountered by users with searching the periodical title index and suggests how this change in online catalogue searching may affect future catalogue design and bibliographic instruction

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.05165086 = product of:
  0.12912714 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 3735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=3735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 3735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3735)
    0.06456973 = weight(_text_:system in 3735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06456973 = score(doc=3735,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.48217484 = fieldWeight in 3735, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3735)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Discusses the retrieval of music materials within the context of OPACs, the characteristics of the music collection. Considers system and interface requirements and the problems attendant upon known item searching in an area where multiple manifestations of a single work are the norm. Covers: indexing and searching; Boolean searching capabilities; and the user-system dialogue, displays, and user assistance text. Describes the specific case of ILLINET Online statewide OPAC for Illinois and the music subsystem of the OPAC

0.049792647 = product of:
  0.12448162 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
    0.05272096 = weight(_text_:system in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05272096 = score(doc=759,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A browsable display under a specific search term can often frustrate users if the display is carried over several screens. This article investigates methods of compressing headings identified by MARC subfield codes to reduce the size of browsable displays. Arguments are presented that a more efficient system design can be achieved by machine sorting of subdivisions via a conceptual, rather than alphabetical, approach. The author concludes that system architecture for browsable subject index displays must be redesigned to relieve the user of the burden of data organization

0.046794422 = product of:
  0.11698605 = sum of:
    0.10148491 = weight(_text_:index in 2222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10148491 = score(doc=2222,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5462205 = fieldWeight in 2222, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2222)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 2222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=2222,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2222, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2222)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Vgl.: http://publiscologne.th-koeln.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/234

Date

18.10.2015 10:29:56

0.044585004 = product of:
  0.11146251 = sum of:
    0.062146567 = weight(_text_:index in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062146567 = score(doc=577,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3344904 = fieldWeight in 577, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=577)
    0.049315944 = weight(_text_:system in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049315944 = score(doc=577,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36826712 = fieldWeight in 577, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=577)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Users move from one state (or task) to another in an information system's labyrinth as they try to accomplish their work, and the amount of time they spend in each state varies. This article uses continuous-time stochastic models, mainly based on semi-Markov chains, to derive user state transition patterns (both in rates and in probabilities) in a Web-based information system. The methodology was demonstrated with 126,925 search sessions drawn from the transaction logs of the University of California's MELVYL® library catalog system (www.melvyLucop.edu). First, user sessions were categorized into six groups based on their similar use of the system. Second, by using a three-layer hierarchical taxonomy of the system Web pages, user sessions in each usage group were transformed into a sequence of states. All the usage groups but one have third-order sequential dependency in state transitions. The sole exception has fourth-order sequential dependency. The transition rates as well as transition probabilities of the semi-Markov model provide a background for interpreting user behavior probabilistically, at various levels of detail. Finally, the differences in derived usage patterns between usage groups were tested statistically. The test results showed that different groups have distinct patterns of system use. Knowledge of the extent of sequential dependency is beneficial because it allows one to predict a user's next move in a search space based on the past moves that have been made. It can also be used to help customize the design of the user interface to the system to facilitate interaction. The group CL6 labeled "knowledgeable and sophisticated usage" and the group CL7 labeled "unsophisticated usage" both had third-order sequential dependency and had the same most-frequently occurring search pattern: screen display, record display, screen display, and record display. The group CL8 called "highly interactive use with good search results" had fourth-order sequential dependency, and its most frequently occurring pattern was the same as CL6 and CL7 with one more screen display action added. The group CL13, called "known-item searching" had third-order sequential dependency, and its most frequently occurring pattern was index access, search with retrievals, screen display, and record display. Group CL14 called "help intensive searching," and CL18 called "relatively unsuccessful" both had thirdorder sequential dependency, and for both groups the most frequently occurring pattern was index access, search without retrievals, index access, and again, search without retrievals.

0.043616004 = product of:
  0.10904001 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 1751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=1751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 1751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1751)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 1751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=1751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1751)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Hertfordshire Libraries, Arts & Information, UK, has made its library catalogue and a community information resource of over 10.000 items available on the WWW through the ALS InfoCentre system. It is currently discussing establishing a managed service for the WWW server in order to maintain a fresh presence on the Web and to sell Web space to recoup investment

Source

Catalogue and index. 1997, no.124, S.6-7

0.041047435 = product of:
  0.10261859 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 1318, 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=1318)
    0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04613084 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A project to design a graphical user interface for the OKAPI online catalogue search system which uses the basic term weighting probabilistic search engine. Presents a research context of the project with a discussion of interface and functionality issues relating to the design of OPACs. Describes the design methodology and evaluation methodology. Presents the preliminary results of the field trial evaluation. Considers problems encountered in the field trial and discusses contributory factors to the effectiveness of interactive query expansion. Highlights the tension between usability and functionality in highly interactive retrieval and suggests further areas of research

0.040945116 = product of:
  0.10236279 = sum of:
    0.08879929 = weight(_text_:index in 1706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08879929 = score(doc=1706,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4779429 = fieldWeight in 1706, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1706)
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 1706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=1706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1706)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

2. 3.2015 10:29:44

Source

http://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hsog/frontdoor/index/index/docId/1124

0.040899117 = product of:
  0.10224779 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=4217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
    0.048427295 = weight(_text_:system in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048427295 = score(doc=4217,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 4217, 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=4217)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Paper presented at the 14th biennal conference of IATUL, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 8-12.7.1991: new technologies and information services - evolution or revolution? Ed. by Jay K. Lucker and published by the British Library on behalf of the IATUL. The ETH-Bibliothek is the main library of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the national centre for scientific and technical literature. Mostly there is no open access for the public. The ETHICS project was initiated to run library applications on the the library's own computer. The project is conceived as a multi-library integrated system whose separate units interrelate via a central database. The main function of the system is the online public access catalogue. Describes the specifications of ETHICS including interactive communication in German and French for storing and retrieving data. The subject index is maintained in French, German and English. Discusses retrieval by title words, subject retrieval and alphabetic retrieval. Outlines future developments

0.040849596 = product of:
  0.10212399 = sum of:
    0.07908144 = weight(_text_:system in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07908144 = score(doc=4106,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5905411 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
    0.023042548 = product of:
      0.06912764 = sum of:
        0.06912764 = weight(_text_:22 in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06912764 = score(doc=4106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 4.1996 20:07:57

0.04073471 = product of:
  0.10183677 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=2278,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=2278,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Keyword and Boolean searching modes are now becoming more commonly available on OPACs, and questions have arisen regarding their use by library patrons. Which patrons use keyword searching, and which do not? This study attempts to begin providing answers to this question in the context of an academic library that uses Northwestern Online Total Integrated System (NOTIS) online catalog

0.04073471 = product of:
  0.10183677 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 2416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=2416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 2416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2416)
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 2416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=2416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2416)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Keyword and Boolean searching modes are now becoming more commonly available on online public access catalogs, and questions have arisen regarding their use by library patrons. How difficult do users perceive these searches to be? Do those who use them tend to rely on them all the time to the exclusion of all other methods? This study attempts to provide answers to these questions in the context of an academic library that uses the Northwestern Online Total Integrated System Online catalog

0.04045806 = product of:
  0.0674301 = sum of:
    0.044399645 = weight(_text_:index in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044399645 = score(doc=3353,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.23897146 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
    0.016309716 = weight(_text_:system in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016309716 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1217929 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
    0.0067207436 = product of:
      0.02016223 = sum of:
        0.02016223 = weight(_text_:22 in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02016223 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Das in den letzten Jahren wiedererwachte Interesse an der klassifikatorischen Erschließung und Recherche hat sich allem Anschein nach noch nicht ausreichend bis zu den Herstellern integrierter Bibliothekssysteme herumgesprochen. Wie wäre es sonst zu erklären, dass im OPAC-Modul eines führenden Systems wie Aleph 500 so gut wie keine Features für klassifikationsbasierte Recherchen zu erblicken sind? Tatsächlich finden wir heute einen im Vergleich zum einstigen System Bibos kaum veränderten Zustand vor: Notationen eines oder mehrerer Klassifikationssysteme können in einer durch MAB dafür bestimmten Kategorie (700, nebst Indikatoren) katalogisiert und dann recherchiert bzw. angezeigt werden. Doch welcher Benutzer weiß schon, was diese Notationen im einzelnen bedeuten? Wer macht sich die Mühe, dies selbst herauszufinden, um dann danach zu recherchieren? Hier liegt im wesentlich dasselbe Problem vor, das schon dem systematischen Zettelkatalog anhaftete und ihn zu einem zwar mühevoll erstellten, aber wenig genutzten Rechercheinstrument machte, das nur dann (zwangsläufig) angenommen wurde, wenn ein verbaler Sachkatalog fehlte. Nun könnte eingewandt werden, dass im Vergleich zu früher unter Aleph 500 wenigstens das Aufblättern von Indizes möglich sei, sodass im OPAC ein Index für die vergebenen Notationen angeboten werden kann (bzw. mehrere solche Indizes bei Verwendung von mehr als nur einem Klassifikationssystem). Gewiss, doch was bringt dem Uneingeweihten das Aufblättern des Notationsindex - außer einer alphabetischen Liste von kryptischen Codes? Weiter könnte man einwenden, dass es im Aleph-500-OPAC die so genannten Suchdienste ("services") gibt, mithilfe derer von bestimmten Elementen einer Vollanzeige hypertextuell weiternavigiert werden kann. Richtig, doch damit kann man bloß wiederum den Index aufblättern oder alle anderen Werke anzeigen lassen, die dieselbe Notationen - also einen Code, dessen Bedeutung meist unbekannt ist - aufweisen. Wie populär mag dieses Feature beim Publikum wohl sein? Ein anderer Einwand wäre der Hinweis auf das inzwischen vom Hersteller angebotene Thesaurus-Modul, das vermutlich auch für Klassifikationssysteme eingesetzt werden könnte. Doch wie viele Bibliotheken unseres Verbundes waren bisher bereit, für dieses Modul, das man eigentlich als Bestandteil des Basissystems erwarten könnte, gesondert zu bezahlen? Schließlich mag man noch einwenden, dass es im Gegensatz zur Bibos-Zeit nun die Möglichkeit gibt, Systematiken und Klassifikationen als Normdateien zu implementieren und diese beim Retrieval für verbale Einstiege in die klassifikatorische Recherche oder zumindest für die Veranschaulichung der Klassenbenennungen in der Vollanzeige zu nutzen. Korrekt - dies ist möglich und wurde sogar einst für die MSC (Mathematics Subject Classification, auch bekannt als "AMS-Klassifikation") versucht. Dieses Projekt, das noch unter der Systemversion 11.5 begonnen wurde, geriet jedoch nach einiger Zeit ins Stocken und fand bedauerlicherweise nie seinen Weg in die folgende Version (14.2). Mag auch zu hoffen sein, dass es unter der neuen Version 16 wieder weitergeführt werden kann, so weist dieses Beispiel doch auf die grundsätzliche Problematik des Normdatei-Ansatzes (zusätzlicher Aufwand, Kontinuität) hin. Zudem lohnt sich die Implementierung einer eigenen Normdatei 4 wohl nur bei einem größeren bzw. komplexen Klassifikationssystem, wogegen man im Falle kleinerer Systematiken kaum daran denken würde.

Source

Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 58(2005) H.1, S.22-37

0.036023937 = product of:
  0.09005984 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 5758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=5758,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 5758, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5758)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 5758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=5758,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 5758, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5758)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Since 1985 the university has had computerized cataloguing and a network of cataloguing centres. The library uses SISIS online, with 2 different OPAC systems. A BS2000 dialogue cooperative now includes all branches, resulting in unified and rational cataloguing development. The catalogue OPAC system ELIS (Erlangen Library Information System) developed originally as an inhouse informal system. SISIS incorporates a loan system and is stored online by BVB

Date

12. 3.1997 12:47:29