<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Hood or Hypertext: A Comparison of O ine and Online Book Search Sessions</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Maria Gade</string-name>
          <email>maria.gaede@ibi.hu-berlin.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Vivien Petras</string-name>
          <email>vivien.petras@ibi.hu-berlin.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Berlin School of Library and Information Science Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin Dorotheenstr.</institution>
          <addr-line>26, 10117 Berlin (maria.gaede</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>People searching for books make use of various sources and systems. While some users prefer online systems, others tend to visit bookstores in their neighborhood. This study compares book search sessions from the iSBS track with observed bookstore search sessions with the aim to investigate similarities and di erences in user behavior and preferences. In particular, the focus lies on the observation and comparison of searching, browsing and recommending strategies. The results indicate signi cant di erences in session duration as well as a strong preference for browsing strategies in bookstore sessions. No such strong preference for one strategy could be observed within the online sessions, even though browsing was still preferred. Recommendations are the least preferred interaction type in either environment.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        How do we search for books? What makes us select a particular book? Both
o ine [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] and online [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] information seeking strategies point out the challenges
for information systems development. Classical metadata search often does not
match observed search tactics. In particular, serendipity cannot be supported by
information systems. In the context of digital libraries, several studies
investigate the implications for digital libraries and ebook usage [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6 ref8">6, 8, 11</xref>
        ]. Hinze et al.
observed distinctive interaction patterns with printed books. Also, library users
tend to judge and evaluate books only after icking through the actual content.
Similar, children often decide to select a book based on haptic and/or visual
aspects. However, due to physical constraints bookshelf browsing is limited to
a certain section compared to the digital environment providing (in theory) a
broader overview of available content.
      </p>
      <p>Users discover books in various ways that are not always covered by
simple search functionalities. Social book search applications like Goodreads1 have
found that recommendations from online and o ine friends play an
important role discovering new books. Often, we only search for a particular book
1 https://www.goodreads.com/
based on personal recommendations2. Recommender systems try to adopt these
relationship-based access strategies by suggesting relevant objects to a similar
user group. However, information systems still often fail in supporting the users
in discovering new or unknown content, especially in casual leisure situations.
In order to improve these systems, we need to better understand user strategies
and preferences and translate them into purposeful features. A common analysis
approach is to compare strategies and interactions in the digital environment
with those that occur in a similar physical environment. Since the physical
environment (in this particular case bookstores) usually precedes the development
of digital environments, processes and strategies for interactions in the
physical environment have already stabilized and experiences can be translated into
patterns for digital information system development. It is a matter of course
that digital environments should o er di erent (usually more e cient or
innovative) user experiences than the physical ones. But starting with a familiar
user experience and expanding from that with the additional features that the
digital environment allows, is a frequent user experience design strategy. This
study compares a physical (i.e. neighborhood) and a digital (i.e. hypertext) book
discovery environment in order to determine where each environment can learn
from the other.</p>
      <p>
        In particular, the study analyzes di erent types of interactions that were
already found and discussed in casual search sessions: searching (the user issues
a particular request), browsing (the user overviews a variety of resources), and
following recommendations (the user follows a previously issued reference)[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Within this research context, this analysis aims at addressing two main
questions:
RQ1 Are searching, browsing and recommendation strategies and preferences (equally)
observable in online and o ine book search sessions?
RQ2 Are there di erences between online (digital book discovery environment)
and o ine (neighborhood bookstore) sessions?
In section 2, the Interactive Social Book Search track is described as well as the
participants and data gathering approach. Section 3 reports on the bookstore
observations. The comparison of online and o ine sessions is given in Section 4.
The paper concludes with a discussion on the results and the approach.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Interactive Social Books Search (ISBS)</title>
      <p>
        Experimental Setup. The Interactive Social Book Search track investigates book
search sessions in order to nd out how users interact with traditional metadata
as well as user-generated content in book search applications [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. Interactive
user studies based on user interactions in a ISBS-developed web-based book
discovery information system are aggregated across multiple researcher groups.
2
http://www.goodreads.com/blog/show/343-how-do-books-get-discovered-a-guidefor-publishers-and-authors-who-want
Participants could choose to interact with the system in a lab environment or
from home.
      </p>
      <p>
        In order to provide a realistic book discovery environment, the underlying
book collection should be large and comparable to other book discovery systems
such as online book sellers or library resource discovery systems. A monolingual
English subset of the INEX Social Book Search's Amazon/LibraryThing book
collection is used, consisting of approximately 1.5 million books. Each book
contains general metadata (title, author(s), publisher, publication year, etc.),
subject metadata (classi cation codes, subject headings), user-generated content
(Amazon user reviews, LibraryThing user tags), and a thumbnail image[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        In contrast to previous years, this year's observation environment only
contained the multistage interface of the ISBS book discovery information system[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4 ref5">5,
4</xref>
        ]. This interface version consists of three stages supporting search, browsing and
exploring strategies[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. A bookbag allows to store, manage and discover selected
and similar books.
      </p>
      <p>For an observation experiment, participants are rst given a training task
that introduces them to the interface. Following, users were asked to complete
either an open or closed task, after which they could also work on a second
optional task if they so chose. For this analysis, only sessions including the
following mandatory open task were considered:</p>
      <p>Imagine you are waiting to meet a friend in a co ee shop or pub or the
airport or your o ce. While waiting, you come across this website and
explore it looking for any book that you nd interesting, or engaging
or relevant. Explore anything you wish until you are completely and
utterly bored. When you nd something interesting, add it to the
bookbag. Please add a note (in the book-bag) explaining why you selected
each of the books.</p>
      <p>The open tasks sessions are most likely comparable to individual bookstore
sessions and have therefore been chosen for further analysis.</p>
      <p>Participants and Data Gathering. Usage data was gathered through log les as
well as user background information and responses through questionnaires. A
total of 111 users participated in this year's experiment with an almost balanced
representation of female (46%) and male (54%) users. The majority of sessions
(67%) occurred in a lab and most participants decided to view and conduct an
additional task (80%). In total, 55 sessions contained an open task and were
extracted for further analysis. Only the rst task was considered.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Bookstore Observation</title>
      <p>Natural Setting. For the bookstore observations, a small bookstore in Berlin,
Germany was chosen, o ering roughly 4.000 items. The small store is housed in
a single room with books grouped by di erent categories and one central
information desk. The observer was placed near the information desk at a position
where it is possible to view the customers in the store as well as listening to the
customer service dialogues. The observations took place during two days (one
weekday and one day in the weekend) in order to capture di erent user groups
and situations. Based on the proposed research question, an observation protocol
was designed focusing on duration, strategies and results for each session. The
session duration represents the period between entering and leaving the store
for each observed person. Interactions were assigned to the search, browsing or
recommendation categories and if necessary session details listed. A session
outcome could be a purchase or ordering of unavailable books. Additionally, gender
information and, if possible, information needs were documented.
Participants and Data Gathering. In total, 39 customers in 37 sessions were
observed. The vast majority of them were females (74%). Comparing weekday
and weekend observations, it is apparent that people tend to visit bookstores
alone during the week and with their family and especially with their children
during the weekend. However, the session duration did not increase signi cantly.
A large amount of information needs were related to other people the customers
where shopping for: either family members or friends.</p>
      <p>Besides the obvious di erences in environments (online and o ine) and the
number of observed sessions (55 in the online and 37 o ine environment), the
two set-ups also di ered in their collections, their "interfaces"3 and the types of
available interactions.</p>
      <p>It is very common that customers approach the information desk to inquire
about books that are not available in the stock of the bookstore, but can be
ordered to be delivered within a 24 hour time-span. In one interpretation, the
physical bookstore added a digital dimension here, which is not reciprocated by
the ISBS interface.</p>
      <p>While the ISBS discovery interface does not immediately reveal the size of
its collection, a bookstore customer can quickly get an overview over the number
and di erent categories of books available due to the physical representation.</p>
      <p>Additionally, the ISBS online interface utilized an automatic algorithm based
on the book records in the collection and the book reviews for recommendation
purposes, while the bookstore used a personalized, human recommender (the
book sellers) who based their recommendations not only on the stock, but also
on other experiences. The subsequent analysis will show whether these di erences
actually lead to di erent interactions.
4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Comparison of O ine and Online Sessions</title>
      <p>In this section, the 55 iSBS sessions are compared to the 37 bookstore sessions
with respect to their session duration and interaction type preferences.
3 In a bookstore, one would probably speak of layout and representation of the stock.
Session Duration. Table 1 shows the average duration of sessions for each data
set. It shows that online sessions last almost double as long as bookstore sessions.
The longest online task completion took 57 minutes, while the longest bookstore
session was 34 minutes long.</p>
      <p>One reason for the longer online sessions might be the experimental
environment as well as the unknown interface and system, which led to longer task
completion times because of unfamiliar complexity. Another juxtaposed reason
might be that participants in the ISBS lab study spent more time with the
system because they were more attuned to the fact that they were being observed,
which led to longer task completion times because of increased carefulness and
attention to the task. A third reason might be that task completion in bookstores
is faster because of the reduced selection variety, which could be interpreted as
both a positive or negative impact factor.</p>
      <p>Interaction Type Preferences. For this analysis, characteristics indicating search,
browsing or recommendation sessions were chosen:
Search sessions are either de ned by the amount of queries issued as well as
the usefulness rating of the ISBS search box by a study participant (i.e. did
they use the search box and nd it useful or not) or through a speci c request
by a bookstore customer.</p>
      <p>Browse sessions are either de ned by browsing interactions through topics as
well as the ratings of the hierarchical topic explorer o ered for browsing by
ISBS or through book(shelf) browsing by a bookstore customer.
Recommendation sessions are either de ned by the usage and rating of
similar books provided at the exploratory bookbag stage or through a
recommendation o ered by the book seller.</p>
      <p>Table 2 compares search strategies from both environments belonging to either
search, browsing or recommendation interactions. With 419 single interactions
iSBS sessions contain on average 7,6 topic re nements. Following, 166 queries
were issued during the open task, averages at least 3 queries per session. Only
32 times in 12 sessions the similar book feature was used. Although almost all
sessions included at least one book saving it remains unclear why the majority
of users did not use the recommendation possibility at the bookbag stage. Those
that made use of this function reported di ering evaluations for the presented
results (see table 3). Similar, browsing activities are predominately observed in
the bookstore. At the second place customers asked a book seller for a speci c
item, i.e. they performed a search. Only 7 sessions contained an interaction
related to recommendations. Mostly, these recommendations were given by the
book seller, only in one case a man called his wife and asked for advice while
searching for a gift.</p>
      <p>Table 3 provides an overview of participants responses for how useful the
above mentioned interface elements were on a scale between 1 (Not at all) and
5 ("Extremely").</p>
      <p>Consistently to the usage data, only 5 participants indicated that they did
not use the hierarchical topic explorer at the browsing stage, which indicates
that browsing was used by more participants than the other interaction types.
In comparison, the search box and similar books were not used by 24% and
42% of the participants. Although a quarter of the participants did not use the
search interaction, when used, most participants found the possibility to query
for a book extremely useful. 16 participants responded the same for the topic
explorer and only 9 for the similar books, indicating that recommendations were
not as helpful as search or browsing.</p>
      <p>Browsing seems to be the preferred interaction type in both environments,
however, it is not considered as useful as searching in the online environment.
This might be due to the sub-optimal browsing possibilities in the online
environment. The instant and - at the same time - complete overview that a bookstore
a ords, cannot be easily replicated here. Recommendations are the least
preferred interaction type in either environment, a surprising nding, considering
how much the leading bookseller Amazon focuses on exactly this interaction
type. However, this needs to be interpreted carefully. The browsing capabilities
of both environments already provide useful indicators for their users, so an
additional recommendation might simply not be necessary. Conversely, the
recommendations in both study environments could also be not as good as might
be expected from a book discovery environment (i.e. as in Amazon) and users
learned to not use this as much.</p>
      <p>These questions once again demonstrate that even carefully designed
interactive studies as the ISBS one only lead to more research questions in need to
be explored.</p>
      <p>Success Rates of Sessions. An interesting follow-up analysis of interaction type
preferences would be to compare preferences with their impact on the success of
an interaction. The vast majority of bookstore sessions were successful with 78 %
of all sessions ending with a purchase or ordering of a book. Success in the online
sessions could be de ned through the saving of a book in the bookbag. In total,
201 books were saved in 55 sessions during the open task. While participants
saved 3.7 books on average, individual session results ranged from one to 18 saved
books. However, since the experimental tasks required at least one book saving,
this is no reliable measure. Also, there is a decided di erence between storing
books in a digital environment, which has no consequences and the completion
of a book buying transaction, which demonstrates a much higher commitment
of the buyer. Therefore success rate between online and o ine sessions were not
taken into account.
5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>This small study of online and o ine book search sessions could point out some
similarities in the environments, but also some di erences. The results indicate
signi cant di erences in session duration as well as a strong preference for
browsing strategies in bookstore sessions. No such strong preference for one strategy
could be observed within the online sessions, even though browsing was still
preferred.</p>
      <p>At the same time, both methods used for data gathering come with
limitations. While interactive retrieval experiments provide a more controlled
environment and details about the participating users, it remains an experiment that is
somehow limited to a certain user group and situation. Unobtrusive observations
in the wild (i.e. a bookstore) provide a more realistic picture, but lack context
information both about the user and environmental factors. For example, users
that look at bookshelves can either want to locate a speci c book which would
be a classic search or browse through the available content.</p>
      <p>It remains unclear to which extent individual and environmental di erences
in uences the observed behavior, a research question that remains open for user
studies. It makes sense to combine di erent methods and sources to support the
translation of casual leisure situations into information system architectures as
the ISBS experiments attempt. For example, the o ine study produced a set of
information needs that could be used for future experiments. Also, the
observation has shown, that bookstore sessions are rather short in duration. However, we
do not know how much time people spend in advance to inform themselves about
or locate interesting books. It seems that book search is rather a multiple-stage
than a single session a air. Especially for personalization features and session
time outs this could be an important aspect to consider.</p>
      <p>Acknowledgments We would like to thank Manuela Wiggert for providing access
to her bookstore Albertinen Buchhandlung as well as valuable insight into a
physical bookstore environment.
European Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction and Information Retrieval,
Dublin, Ireland, August 1, 2013 (2013), pp. 19{22.
11. Zhang, Y., and Kudva, S. E-books versus print books: Readers' choices and
preferences across contexts. JASIST 65, 8 (2014), 1695{1706.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bellot</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bogers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Geva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hall</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Huurdeman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kamps</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kazai</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Koolen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Moriceau</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mothe</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <source>Overview of inex 2014. In Information Access Evaluation</source>
          . Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction. Springer,
          <year>2014</year>
          , pp.
          <volume>212</volume>
          {
          <fpage>228</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Buchanan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>and</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <surname>McKay</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>In the bookshop: Examining popular search strategies</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries</source>
          (New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2011</year>
          ),
          <source>JCDL '11</source>
          , ACM, pp.
          <volume>269</volume>
          {
          <fpage>278</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3. Gade, M.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hall</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Huurdeman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kamps</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Koolen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Toms</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Skov</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Walsh</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Overview of the SBS 2015 Interactive Track</article-title>
          .
          <source>In CEUR Workshop Proceedings</source>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hall</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Katsaris</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Toms</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E. G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A pluggable work-bench for creating interactive IR interfaces</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction and Information Retrieval</source>
          , Dublin, Ireland,
          <source>August</source>
          <volume>1</volume>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ), pp.
          <volume>35</volume>
          {
          <fpage>38</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hall</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Toms</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Building</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>a common framework for iir evaluation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization: 4th International Conference of the CLEF Initiative, CLEF</source>
          <year>2013</year>
          , Valencia, Spain,
          <source>September 23-26</source>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          . Proceedings (
          <year>2013</year>
          ), pp.
          <volume>17</volume>
          {
          <fpage>28</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hinze</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>McKay</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vanderschantz</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Timpany</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cunningham</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Book selection behavior in the physical library: implications for ebook collections</article-title>
          .
          <source>In JCDL'12</source>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ), pp.
          <volume>305</volume>
          {
          <fpage>314</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kim</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Feild</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cartright</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Understanding book search behavior on the web</article-title>
          .
          <source>In CIKM'</source>
          <year>2012</year>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          ), pp.
          <volume>744</volume>
          {
          <fpage>753</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Reuter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Druin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Bringing together children and books: An initial descriptive study of children's book searching and selection behavior in a digital library</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 41</source>
          ,
          <issue>1</issue>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          ),
          <volume>339</volume>
          {
          <fpage>348</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vakkari</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of documentation 57</source>
          ,
          <issue>1</issue>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          ),
          <volume>44</volume>
          {
          <fpage>60</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Villa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Clough</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P. D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hall</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rutter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Search or browse? casual information access to a cultural heritage collection</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 3rd</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>