Search results

This paper provides an empirical characterization of elicitation purposes related to search tasks during mediated information retrieval. During retrieval, a human search intermediary consults with an information seeker about their information problem, and then conducts a search on the elicited topic, both elicit information from each other during the mediated search process. Elicitations during 30 mediated IR searches were examined. A total of 1,241 search intermediary elicitations within 17 IR elicitation categories and 485 information seeker elicitations within ten IR elicitations categories were identified. The paper provides an enhanced IR task model, including sub tasks, derived from our empirical findings. The implications of the findings are discussed.

This paper describes INSTRUCT, an interactive computer program which has been developed as a teaching aid for use within schools of librarianship and information science. The program demonstrates some of the techniques that have been suggested for implementing document retrieval systems in the future, and currently runs on a search file that comprises 6,004 documents from the Library and Information Science Abstracts database. INSTRUCT has facilities for natural language query processing, including the use of a stop‐word list, a stemming algorithm and a fuzzy‐matching routine that allows the automatic identification of a range of word variants; the provision of ranked output using automatic term weighting and a nearest‐neighbour searching procedure; and automatic relevance feedback using probabilistic relevance weights. The program is menu‐driven and can be used by searchers with little or no user training.

The choice of a suitable data base for providing an information service is governed by factors of coverage, performance, and cost. The cost of the data base to subscribers is a known quantity, and the coverage is decided by the data base producers. This paper describes an investigation into the relative performance of the four major Chemical Abstracts Service magnetic tape data‐bases, Chemical Titles (CT), which contains the titles of citations only, Chemical Abstracts Condensates (CAC), which contains titles enriched with keyword phrases, Chemical‐Biological Activities (CBAC), and Polymer Science and Technology (POST), both of which contain full digests in addition to titles. The performance was measured in terms of the relative currency of the four data‐bases, and the retrieval efficiency of profiles searched against them. Fifty questions from industrial and government research organizations were used in the experiment. Search profiles corresponding to these questions were constructed for searching against each data‐base, output was assessed for relevance by users, and profile performance figures (precision and recall ratios) were calculated for each profile. The overall retrieval efficiency of profiles searched against data‐bases containing titles only, titles‐plus‐keywords, and titles‐plus‐digests, was calculated, and these results are presented.

In this article, the fifth in a series on microcomputer software for information storage and retrieval, test results of seven programs are presented and various properties and qualities of these programs are discussed. In this instalment of the series we discuss programs for information storage and retrieval which are primarily characterised by the properties of personal information managers (PIMs), hypertext programs, or best match and ranking retrieval systems. The programs reviewed in this issue are the personal information managers 3by5/RediReference, askSam, Dayflo Tracker, and Ize; Personal Librarian uses best match and ranking; the hypertext programs are Folio Views and the HyperKRS/HyperCard combination (askSam, Ize and Personal Librarian boast hypertext features as well). HyperKRS/HyperCard is only available for the Apple Macintosh. All other programs run under MS‐DOS; versions of Personal Librarian also run under Windows and some other systems. For each of the seven programs about 100 facts and test results are tabulated. The programs are also discussed individually.

A retrieval system may be evaluated strictly in terms of user satisfaction (operating efficiency), or it may be evaluated from the point of view of efficient means of satisfying user requirements (economic efficiency). When we consider the relationship between operating efficiency and economic efficiency, we are faced with a whole series of possible trade‐offs. There may be several alternative paths we can follow in order to serve user needs. The problem is to determine the most economical path to follow. Pay‐off factors, break‐even points, and diminishing returns must be taken into consideration. This paper considers some of these factors in relation to various parts of the complete retrieval system: the acquisition subsystem, the indexing subsystem, the index language, the searching subsystem, and the equipment subsystem.

This paper compares and contrasts online searching on DataStar, a major European host now owned by The Dialog Corporation, using the “Classic” command language, with access via the more recent Web interface. DataStar, established in 1981, was one of the first online hosts to offer a web interface, in December 1996. DataStar Web was upgraded in December 1997. “Classic” DataStar command line searching requires familiarity with commands, operators, database labels, etc. DataStar Web offers searching via apparently simple steps: eg. selecting a database, entering search terms. The functionality of the two interfaces is considered, looking in turn at entering the system, selecting a database, searching, output and display, terminating the search session, error messages and help pages, and support, training and documentation. The search functionality of the two interfaces is not identical, although both use the same retrieval software and access the same databases. Many of the differences affect retrieval effectiveness and may trip up novice and experienced searchers alike.

Nurses are constantly faced with information needs to keep up in the fast pace, ever‐changing state of health and nursing. Information that is available through advancing computer and technology is oftentimes difficult and cumbersome to learn and access. This is a case study of how three nurses used and evaluated three different types of information search databases in terms of three measure criteria. The results are useful in guiding nurses to use these information sources, as well as other database users with little or no experience in searching such systems. Insights from the study can also assist system designers and programmers in future planning and redesigns of these systems, in order to maximize use and expand the user base of these search systems.

This paper aims to present findings from a survey that aimed to identify the issues around the use and linkage of source and output repositories and the chemistry researchers' expectations about their use.

This survey was performed by means of an online questionnaire and structured interviews with academic and research staff in the field of chemistry. A total of 38 people took part in the online questionnaire survey and 17 participated in face‐to‐face interviews, accounting for 55 responses in total.

Members of academic and research staff in chemistry from institutions in the UK were, in general, favourably disposed towards the idea of linking research data and published research outputs, believing that this facility would be either a significant advantage or useful for the research conducted in the domain. Further information about the nature of the research that they conduct, the type of data that they produce, the sharing and availability of research data and the use and expectations of source and output repositories is also discussed.

Interpretation of the results must recognise that the majority of the interviewees worked in the area of theoretical/computational chemistry and therefore their views may not be representative of other chemistry research fields.

Such data was essential for the business analysis that described the functional requirements for the development of the key deliverable of the source‐to‐output repositories (StORe) project, the pilot middleware, which aimed to facilitate and demonstrate the bi‐directional links between source and output repositories. It also enabled the identification of workflows in research practice and contributed to the prime aspiration of the StORe project which was to invest new value to the intellectual products of academic research.

A new option in resequencing output from online searches of journal literatures is proposed: computerized sorting of hits by the journals in which they appear, and then of journals, high to low, by the number of hits appearing in each. This two‐step operation is called ‘Bradfordizing’ since it ranks journals in order of their yields of hits, in the manner used by S. C. Bradford in formulating his much‐studied law. Benefits envisioned from Bradfordizing output include (1) an online summary report that would show, before hits were printed out, the journals involved in the retrieval and their respective yields; (2) capability to retrieve hits selectively by journal, based on the report; (3) capability to display certain statistics to help in making retrieval decisions, or in the interest of bibliometric research; and (4) printouts of hits arranged in a way that corresponds to journal runs on shelves, thereby helping librarians provide copies of desired items.

VINE is produced at least four times a year with the object of providing up‐to‐date news of work being done in the automation of library housekeeping processes, principally in the UK. It is edited and substantially written by Tony McSean, Information Officer for Library Automation based in Southampton University Library and supported by a grant from the British Library Research and Development Department. Copyright for VINE articles rests with the British Library Board, but opinions expressed in VINE do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the British Library. The subscription to VINE is £10 per year and the subscription period runs from January to December.