Search (69 results, page 1 of 4)

0.07355442 = product of:
  0.29421768 = sum of:
    0.29421768 = weight(_text_:headings in 1231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29421768 = score(doc=1231,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 1231, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1231)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes a study to investigate end user understanding of subdivided subject headings in their current form and in the form proposed by the first recommendation of the Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference. The impetus for this study was a charge by the Subject Analysis Committee of the ALA to respond to the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference that proposed standardizing the order of subject subdivisions. Questionnaires bearing subdivided subject headings in the 'current' form and in the form proposed were distributed to users and professional cataloguers who were asked for the meaning of individual headings. The end users' responses to cataloguers' responses were compared to determine end users' level of understanding of subdivided subject headings. An analysis of end user interpretations demonstrated that they interpreted the meaning of subject headings in the same manner as cataloguers about 40% of the time for 'current' forms of subject headings and about 32% of the time for 'proposed' forms of subject headings. Concludes with specific recommendations about the first recommendation of the LC Subject Subdivisions Conference and general recommendations about increasing end user understanding of subdivided subject headinbgs

0.07355442 = product of:
  0.29421768 = sum of:
    0.29421768 = weight(_text_:headings in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29421768 = score(doc=2333,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.9098252 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

n this article, we report on the first large-scale study of end-user understanding of subject headings. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which children and adults understood subdivided subject headings and to suggest improvements for improving understanding of subject headings. The 1991 Library of Congress Subject Subdivisions Conference suggested standardizing the order of subject subdivisions for the purpose of simplifying subject cataloging, which served as the impetus for the study. We demonstrated that adults understood subject headings better than children; however, both adults and children assigned correct meanings to less than half of the subject headings they examined. Neither subject heading context nor subdivision order had an effect on understanding. Based on our findings, we challenge the library community to make major changes to the Library of Congress Subject Headings system that have the potential to increase end-user understanding of subject headings.

0.06601483 = product of:
  0.2640593 = sum of:
    0.2640593 = weight(_text_:judge in 2445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2640593 = score(doc=2445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 2445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2445)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06601483 = product of:
  0.2640593 = sum of:
    0.2640593 = weight(_text_:judge in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2640593 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this issue Maglaughin and Sonnenwald provided 12 graduate students with searches related to the student's work and asked them to judge the twenty most recent retrieved representations by highlighting passages thought to contribute to relevance, marking out passages detracting from relevance, and providing a relevant, partially relevant or relevant judgement on each. By recorded interview they were asked about how these decisions were made and to describe the three classes of judgement. The union of criteria identified in past studies did not seem to fully capture the information supplied so a new set was produced and coding agreement found to be adequate. Twenty-nine criteria were identified and grouped into six categories based upon the focus of the criterion. Multiple criteria are used for most judgements, and most criteria may have either a positive or negative effect. Content was the most frequently mentioned criterion.

0.055012353 = product of:
  0.22004941 = sum of:
    0.22004941 = weight(_text_:judge in 1587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22004941 = score(doc=1587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 1587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1587)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Subject content analysis of Web query terms is essential to understand Web searching interests. Such analysis includes exploring search topics and observing changes in their frequency distributions with time. To provide a basis for in-depth analysis of users' search interests on a larger scale, this article presents a query categorization approach to automatically classifying Web query terms into broad subject categories. Because a query is short in length and simple in structure, its intended subject(s) of search is difficult to judge. Our approach, therefore, combines the search processes of real-world search engines to obtain highly ranked Web documents based on each unknown query term. These documents are used to extract cooccurring terms and to create a feature set. An effective ranking function has also been developed to find the most appropriate categories. Three search engine logs in Taiwan were collected and tested. They contained over 5 million queries from different periods of time. The achieved performance is quite encouraging compared with that of human categorization. The experimental results demonstrate that the approach is efficient in dealing with large numbers of queries and adaptable to the dynamic Web environment. Through good integration of human and machine efforts, the frequency distributions of subject categories in response to changes in users' search interests can be systematically observed in real time. The approach has also shown potential for use in various information retrieval applications, and provides a basis for further Web searching studies.

0.055012353 = product of:
  0.22004941 = sum of:
    0.22004941 = weight(_text_:judge in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22004941 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5152282 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to resolve a gap in the knowledge of how people with dyslexia interact with information retrieval (IR) systems, specifically an understanding of their information-searching behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - The dyslexia cognitive profile is used to design a logging system, recording the difference between two sets of participants: dyslexic and control users. A standard Okapi interface is used - together with two standard TREC topics - in order to record the information searching behaviour of these users. Findings - Using the log data, the differences in information-searching behaviour of control and dyslexic users, i.e. in the way the two groups interact with Okapi, are established and it also established that qualitative information collected (such as experience etc.) may not be able to account for these differences. Evidence from query variables was unable to distinguish between groups, but differences on topic for the same variables were recorded. Users who view more documents tended to judge more documents as being relevant, in terms of either the user group or topic. Session data indicated that there may be an important difference between the number of iterations used in a search between the user groups, as there may be little effect from the topic on this variable. Originality/value - This is the first study of the effect of dyslexia on information search behaviour, and it provides some evidence to take the field forward.

0.052549813 = product of:
  0.21019925 = sum of:
    0.21019925 = weight(_text_:headings in 2178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21019925 = score(doc=2178,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.6500105 = fieldWeight in 2178, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2178)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Digital repository migrations present a periodic opportunity to assess metadata quality and to perform strategic enhancements. Lafayette College Libraries implemented OCLC FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) for its digital image collections as part of a migration from multiple repositories to a single one built on the Samvera Hyrax open-source framework. Application of FAST has normalized subject headings across dissimilar collections in a way that tremendously improves descriptive consistency for staff and discoverability for end users. However, the process of applying FAST headings was complicated by several features of in-scope metadata as well as gaps in available controlled subject authorities.

0.052010827 = product of:
  0.2080433 = sum of:
    0.2080433 = weight(_text_:headings in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2080433 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.64334357 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.052010827 = product of:
  0.2080433 = sum of:
    0.2080433 = weight(_text_:headings in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2080433 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.64334357 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.052010827 = product of:
  0.2080433 = sum of:
    0.2080433 = weight(_text_:headings in 794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2080433 = score(doc=794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.64334357 = fieldWeight in 794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=794)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.034673885 = product of:
  0.13869554 = sum of:
    0.13869554 = weight(_text_:headings in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13869554 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A survey of catalogue use in 1993 at Utrecht University in the Netherlands showed considerable dissatisfaction with the online catalogue's subject search facilities. Of those who used subject searching 64% preferred subject headings against only 2% who chose classification schedules. Library users make little use of the existing facilities for assistance and leaflets which are available in the library. It has, therefore, been decided to provide a programme of instruction in library use and to move towards a unified system of subject access to the library's catalogue

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=738,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 738, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=738)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Results of previous catalog research indicate that users want improvements in subject searching features, noting display of terms related to their topics as especially desirable. This study reports the findings of an examination of subject searchers' use of such a feature provided through online display of authority information from Library of Congress Subject Headings for terms used in the catalog. It was found that, of the terms entered by users, 78 percent were an exact or close match to catalog terms, and another 14 percent matched "see" references. Although additional information was available for nearly half of the searches performed, it was used in only 28 percent of these cases. It is suggested that improvements in subject searching features are needed to encourage use of available syndetic structures

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 5257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=5257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 5257, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5257)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 1367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=1367,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 1367, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1367)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study of subject access to UK academic library catalogues was based on a questionnaires end out during Summer 1991. 86 out of a possible 110 questionnaires were returned. All universities and polytechniques now have OPACs which are progressing well towards comprehensive bibliographical coverage of their libraries' stocks. The MARC format is now widely used. Subject access strategies are usually based on either Library of Congress Subject Headings or inhouse indexing systems but almost half the OPACs studies have no separate subject searching option based on subject indexing is expensive and future subject indexing strategies are best based on pre-existing controlled vocabularies. Strategies authority control is essential. A limited range of software strategies is recommended including the need to limit search results

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Current online catalogs have problems providing reasonable subject access, often resulting in searches with too few or too many hits. These problems can be improved by enhancing MARC records, building semantic networks through cross-references, and linking subject headings to classification numbers. This paper describes a pilot project to design a hypertext search engine using these principles

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 3974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=3974,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 3974, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3974)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study examines end-user interactions with indexing language information during subject searching in a library catalog and their understanding of this information and its function in term selection. Participants were asked to interact with the indexing language (Library of Congress Subject Headings) and were asked to express their general understanding of the information provided and each specific type of information included in the indexing language. In addition, participants were asked to express their understanding of the function of indexing language information in term selection, its usefulness and desirability as an integrated tool into the information retrieval system during subject searching. Study findings and their implications are discussed and future research is considered.

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=704,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 704, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=704)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The research described in this article extends work done on human behavior in naming concepts and objects by adapting a methodology developed at Bell Labs and applying it to a library indexing language, the Library of Congress Subject Headings. The study investigated the representation of users' knowledge (names of objects and concepts), database representation for similar objects and concepts, and degree of agreement among users and between users and information systems. Three user groups give names to 40 stumuli. Names generated were compared with each other and with LCSH. Degree of agreement was calculated using similarity measures. The analyses identified patterns of agreement and variability in naming. There was little agreement in the names people use and the names recommended for use by LC, implying that retrieval systems should do more to accomodate common naming behavior

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=473)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this study descriptions of a novel by 100 users at 2 Swedish public libraries, Malmö and Molndal, Mar-Apr 95, were compared to the index terms used for the novels at these libraries. Describes previous systems for fiction indexing, the 2 libraries, and the users interviewed. Compares the AMP system with their own model. The latter operates with terms under the headings phenomena, frame and author's intention. The similarities between the users' and indexers' descriptions were sufficiently close to make it possible to retrieve fiction in accordance with users' wishes in Molndal, and would have been in Malmö, had more books been indexed with more terms. Sometimes the similarities were close enough for users to retrieve fiction on their own

0.026005413 = product of:
  0.10402165 = sum of:
    0.10402165 = weight(_text_:headings in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10402165 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Four focus groups were held with young Web users (10 to 13 years of age) to explore design criteria for Web portals. The focus group participants commented upon four existing portals designed with young users in mind: Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick, Lycos Zone, and Yahooligans! This article reports their first impressions on using these portals, their likes and dislikes, and their suggestions for improvements. Design criteria for children's Web portals are elaborated based upon these comments under four headings: portal goals, visual design, information architecture, and personalization. An ideal portal should cater for both educational and entertainment needs, use attractive screen designs based especially on effective use of color, graphics, and animation, provide both keyword search facilities and browsable subject categories, and allow individual user personalization in areas such as color and graphics

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=1617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study adopts a naturalistic approach to investigate users' interaction with a browsable MeSH (medical subject headings) display designed to facilitate query construction for the PubMed bibliographic database. The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to test the usefulness of a browsable interface utilizing the principle of faceted classification; and second, to investigate users' preferred query submission methods in different problematic situations. An interface that incorporated multiple query submission methods - the conventional single-line query box as well as methods associated the faceted classification display was constructed. Participants' interactions with the interface were monitored remotely over a period of 10 weeks; information about their problematic situations and information retrieval behaviors were also collected during this time. The traditional controlled experiment was not adequate in answering the author's research questions; hence, the author provides his rationale for a naturalistic approach. The study's findings show that there is indeed a selective compatibility between query submission methods provided by the MeSH display and users' problematic situations. The query submission methods associated with the display were found to be the preferred search tools when users' information needs were vague and the search topics unfamiliar. The findings support the theoretical proposition that users engaging in an information retrieval process with a variety of problematic situations need different approaches. The author argues that rather than treat the information retrieval system as a general purpose tool, more attention should be given to the interaction between the functionality of the tool and the characteristics of users' problematic situations.