Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=813,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 813, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=4346,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Why authors cite particular documents has been the subject of both speculation and empirical investigation for decades. This article provides a short history of attempts to understand citation motivations and reports a replication of earlier surveys measuring reasons for citations. Comparisons are made among various types of scholars. The present study identified six highly cited articles in the topic area of bibliometrics and surveyed all of the locatable authors who cited those works (n=112). It was thought that bibliometricians, given that this is their area of expertise, might have a heightened level of awareness of their own citation practices, and hence a different pattern of responses. Several reasons indicated by the 56% of the sample who identified themselves as bibliometricians differed in statistically significant ways from nonbibliometricians, and also from earlier samples of scholars in Communication and Psychology. By far the most common reason for citing a document is that it represents a genre. A factor analysis shows that 20 motivations, clustered in seven factors, can represent the most common motivations for citation. The implications of these findings are discussed in the light of recent debates about the role of social factors in citation. Alternative methods for investigating citation behavior are discussed.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 4775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=4775,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4775, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Authors' motivation for citing documents are addressed through a literature review and an empirical study. Replicating an investigation in psychology, the works of 2 highly-cited authors in the discipline of communication were identified, and all of the authros who cited them during the period 1995-1997 were surveyed. The instrument posed 32 questions about why a certain document was cited, plus questions about the citer's relationship to the cited author and document. Most findings were similar to the psychology study, including a tendency to cite 'concept markers' representing a genre of work. Authors in communication were more likely to have an interpersonal connection to cited authors, and to cite literatire reviews - their most common reason for citation. 3 types of judgements about cited works were found to best predict citation: (1) that the work was novel, well-known, and a concept-marker; (2) that citing it might promote the authority of one's own work; and (3) that the work deserved criticism. Suggestions are made for further research, especially regarding the anomalous role of creativity in cited works

Type

a

0.0018985287 = product of:
  0.0037970573 = sum of:
    0.0037970573 = product of:
      0.0075941146 = sum of:
        0.0075941146 = weight(_text_:a in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075941146 = score(doc=1270,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14300041 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=975,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This research contrasts two different conceptions, fields and pathways, of individual information behavior in context. These different approaches imply different relationships between actors and their information environments and, thus, encapsulate different views of the relationship between individual actions and contexts. We discuss these different theoretical views, then empirically compare and contrast them. The operationalization of these conceptions is based on different analytic treatments of the same raw data: a battery of three questions based on respondent's unaided recall of the sources they would consult for information on inherited cancers, a particularly rich information seeking problem. These operationalizations are then analyzed in a nomological network of related concepts drawn from an omnibus survey of 882 adults. The results indicated four clusters for fields and 16 different pathways, indicating increased fragmentation of information environments, with different underlying logics and active ingredients, although the use of the Internet appears to be an emerging common theme. The analysis of the nomological network suggests that both approaches may have applications for particular problems. In the implications, we compare and contrast these approaches, discussing their significance for future methodological, analytical, and theoretical developments.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2691,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although a number of investigations have been conducted on the information behavior of family historians, we know little about the degree to which they systematically collect information on the causes of death and major illnesses of ancestors. Such information, if reliable and accessible, could be useful to family physicians, the families themselves, and to epidemiologists. This article presents findings from a two-stage study of amateur genealogists in the USA. An initial state-wide telephone survey of 901 households was followed by in-depth interviews with a national sample of 23 family historians. Over half of the responding households in the general survey reported that someone in their family collects ancestral medical data; this practice appears to be more common among respondents who are women, older persons, and those with higher incomes. In-depth interviews revealed that this information is commonly collected by family historians, and typically comes from death certificates, secondarily from obituaries, and thirdly from word-of-mouth or family records; most of these respondents collected health information for reasons of surveillance of their own health risks. Social-networking approaches to encourage gathering of family data could aid in increased awareness and surveillance of health risks. Implications for health information seeking and applicable theories are discussed.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2241,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2241, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The diffusion of the Internet has radically expanded the readily available sources for information of all types. Information that was once obtained second-hand from friends and acquaintances-the traditional "two-step flow"-is now found easily through the Internet. The authors make use of survey data to explore this thesis in regards to information sources about genetic testing and the influence of the Internet an the information seeking behaviors of the public. A telephone survey of a random sample of 882 adults asked them about their knowledge of, concerns about, and interest in genetic testing. Respondents were most likely to first turn to the Internet for information about cancer genetics, second to public libraries, and third to medical doctors. Overall, doctors were the most likely source to be consulted when second and third choices are considered. Age, income, and self-reported understanding of genetics are shown to be predictors of whether someone goes to medical professionals for advice, rather than to the Internet or public library. The results raise questions about the apparent tendency of the public to regard the Internet as the best source of information an complex topics like genetics, for which it may be ill-suited.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 7704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=7704,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 7704, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

'Videotex' was an early incarnation of what have been more recently called 'end-user information services'. This article considers the origins and historical development of videotex over three decades, comparing various nationally sponsored and private systems in Europe and North America, and discussing reasons given for the 'failure' of videotex. The influence of nontechnical factors on videotex and perceptions of critical problems and acceptable solutions are described. According to this interpretation, the development of videotex faced four 'bottlenecks' at once: the determination of transmission channels; the choice of a display device; agreement on coding standards; and the marketing of these resulting services. In how it accomodated these problems, videotex provides an example of how social, political, and economic elements are inseparable from technical constraints in the development of new information technologies

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 2838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=2838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2838, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a