Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.038125217 = product of:
  0.076250434 = sum of:
    0.076250434 = sum of:
      0.04095075 = weight(_text_:i in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04095075 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 667, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=667)
      0.03529968 = weight(_text_:22 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03529968 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05210816 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 667, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=667)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:41:17

0.024570452 = product of:
  0.049140904 = sum of:
    0.049140904 = product of:
      0.09828181 = sum of:
        0.09828181 = weight(_text_:i in 6431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09828181 = score(doc=6431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 6431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012285226 = product of:
  0.024570452 = sum of:
    0.024570452 = product of:
      0.049140904 = sum of:
        0.049140904 = weight(_text_:i in 2125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049140904 = score(doc=2125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article analyzes user-IR system interaction from the broad, socio-cognitive perspective of lessons we can learn about human brain evolution when we compare the Neanderthal brain to the human brain before and after a small human brain mutation is hypothesized to have occurred 35,000-75,000 years ago. The enhanced working memory mutation enabled modern humans (i) to decode unfamiliar environmental stimuli with greater focusing power on adaptive solutions to environmental changes and problems, and (ii) to encode environmental stimuli in more efficient, generative knowledge structures. A sociological theory of these evolving, more efficient encoding knowledge structures is given. These new knowledge structures instilled in humans not only the ability to adapt to and survive novelty and/or changing conditions in the environment, but they also instilled an imperative to do so. Present day IR systems ignore the encoding imperative in their design framework. To correct for this lacuna, we propose the evolutionary-based socio-cognitive framework model for designing interactive IR systems. A case study is given to illustrate the functioning of the model.

0.010589904 = product of:
  0.021179808 = sum of:
    0.021179808 = product of:
      0.042359617 = sum of:
        0.042359617 = weight(_text_:22 in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042359617 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 14:51:49

0.010575711 = product of:
  0.021151422 = sum of:
    0.021151422 = product of:
      0.08460569 = sum of:
        0.08460569 = weight(_text_:authors in 4814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08460569 = score(doc=4814,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4814, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4814)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors present a study of the real-life information needs of 59 McGill University undergraduates researching essay topics for either a history or psychology course, interviewed just after they had selected their essay topic. The interview's purpose was to transform the undergraduate's query from general topic terms, based an vague conceptions of their essay topic, to an information need-based query. To chart the transformation, the authors investigate N. J. Belkin, R. N. Oddy, and H. M. Brooks' Anomalous States of Knowledge (ASK) hypothesis (1982a, 1982b), which links the user's ASK to a relevant document set via a common code based an structural facets. In the present study an interoperable structural code based an eight essay styles is created, then notions of structural facets compatible with a highimpact essay structure are presented. The important findings of the study are: (a) the undergraduates' topic statements and terms derived from it do not constitute an effective information need statement because for most of the subjects in the study the topic terms conformed to a low-impact essay style; (b) essay style is an effective interoperable structural code for charting the evolution of the undergraduate's knowledge state from ASK to partial resolution of the ASK in an information need statement.

0.010575711 = product of:
  0.021151422 = sum of:
    0.021151422 = product of:
      0.08460569 = sum of:
        0.08460569 = weight(_text_:authors in 4915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08460569 = score(doc=4915,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 4915, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4915)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For millennia humans have sought, organized, and used information as they learned and evolved patterns of human information behaviors to resolve their human problems and survive. However, despite the current focus an living in an "information age," we have a limited evolutionary understanding of human information behavior. In this article the authors examine the current three interdisciplinary approaches to conceptualizing how humans have sought information including (a) the everyday life information seeking-sense-making approach, (b) the information foraging approach, and (c) the problem-solution perspective an information seeking approach. In addition, due to the lack of clarity regarding the rote of information use in information behavior, a fourth information approach is provided based an a theory of information use. The use theory proposed starts from an evolutionary psychology notion that humans are able to adapt to their environment and survive because of our modular cognitive architecture. Finally, the authors begin the process of conceptualizing these diverse approaches, and the various aspects or elements of these approaches, within an integrated model with consideration of information use. An initial integrated model of these different approaches with information use is proposed.

0.010575711 = product of:
  0.021151422 = sum of:
    0.021151422 = product of:
      0.08460569 = sum of:
        0.08460569 = weight(_text_:authors in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08460569 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors report the findings of a study that analyzes and compares the query logs of PsycINFO for psychology and the two history databases of ABC-Clio: Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life to establish the sociological nature of information need, searching, and seeking in history versus psychology. Two problems are addressed: (a) What level of query log analysis - by individual query terms, by co-occurrence of word pairs, or by multiword terms (MWTs) - best serves as data for categorizing the queries to these two subject-bound databases; and (b) how can the differences in the nature of the queries to history versus psychology databases aid in our understanding of user search behavior and the information needs of their respective users. The authors conclude that MWTs provide the most effective snapshot of user searching behavior for query categorization. The MWTs to ABC-Clio indicate specific instances of historical events, people, and regions, whereas the MWTs to PsycINFO indicate concepts roughly equivalent to descriptors used by PsycINFO's own classification scheme. The average length of queries is 3.16 terms for PsycINFO and 3.42 for ABC-Clio, which breaks from findings for other reference and scholarly search engine studies, bringing query length closer in line to findings for general Web search engines like Excite.

0.010469419 = product of:
  0.020938838 = sum of:
    0.020938838 = product of:
      0.08375535 = sum of:
        0.08375535 = weight(_text_:authors in 3575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08375535 = score(doc=3575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 3575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3575)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article briefly examines an issue currently facing cataloguers: how to transliterate Chinese proper names and titles into romanized letters. The two major transliteration systems are Wade-Giles, still used by many libraries in the West, and Hanyu Pinyin, which is not only used in the People's Republic of China's elementary schools as a pronunciation aid, but has recently been adopted by our own western media and certain departments of the American government. The authors advocate the complete abandonment of Wade-Giles in favor of Hanyu Pinyin.

0.010237687 = product of:
  0.020475375 = sum of:
    0.020475375 = product of:
      0.04095075 = sum of:
        0.04095075 = weight(_text_:i in 2575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04095075 = score(doc=2575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When accessing an information retrieval system, it has long been said that undergraduates who are in an exploratory stage of researching their essay topic should use a high recall search strategy; what prevents them from doing so is the information overload factor associated with showing the undergraduate a long list of citations. One method of overcoming information overload is summarizing and visualizing the citation list. This paper examines five summarization and visualization schemes for presenting information retrieval (IR) citation output, then discusses whether these schemes are appropriate for undergraduates and other domain novice users. We ask and answer four questions: (1) What is the message these schemes try to communicate and (2) is this message appropriate for domain novice users like undergraduates? (3) How do these schemes communicate their message and (4) is how they communicate the message appropriate for a domain novice? We conclude that (i) the most appropriate message for information space visualizations for domain novice users is associative thinking, and (ii) the message should be communicated with a standardized look that remains relatively constant over time so that the shape and form of the visualization can become familiar and thus useful to students as they navigate their way through the information space produced by a high recall search strategy.

0.010237687 = product of:
  0.020475375 = sum of:
    0.020475375 = product of:
      0.04095075 = sum of:
        0.04095075 = weight(_text_:i in 1819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04095075 = score(doc=1819,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 1819, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010237687 = product of:
  0.020475375 = sum of:
    0.020475375 = product of:
      0.04095075 = sum of:
        0.04095075 = weight(_text_:i in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04095075 = score(doc=2265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0070599364 = product of:
  0.014119873 = sum of:
    0.014119873 = product of:
      0.028239746 = sum of:
        0.028239746 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028239746 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22

0.006142613 = product of:
  0.012285226 = sum of:
    0.012285226 = product of:
      0.024570452 = sum of:
        0.024570452 = weight(_text_:i in 480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024570452 = score(doc=480,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.12501636 = fieldWeight in 480, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=480)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What is the uniquely human factor in finding and using information to produce new knowledge? Is there an underlying aspect of our thinking that cannot be imitated by the AI-equipped machines that will increasingly dominate our lives? This book answers these questions, and tells us about our consciousness - its drive or intention in seeking information in the world around us, and how we are able to construct new knowledge from this information. The book is divided into three parts, each with an introduction and a conclusion that relate the theories and models presented to the real-world experience of someone using a search engine. First, Part I defines the exceptionality of human consciousness and its need for new information and how, uniquely among all other species, we frame our interactions with the world. Part II then investigates the problem of finding our real information need during information searches, and how our exceptional ability to frame our interactions with the world blocks us from finding the information we really need. Lastly, Part III details the solution to this framing problem and its operational implications for search engine design for everyone whose objective is the production of new knowledge. In this book, Charles Cole deliberately writes in a conversational style for a broader readership, keeping references to research material to the bare minimum. Replicating the structure of a detective novel, he builds his arguments towards a climax at the end of the book. For our video-game, video-on-demand times, he has visualized the ideas that form the book's thesis in over 90 original diagrams. And above all, he establishes a link between information need and knowledge production in evolutionary psychology, and thus bases his arguments in our origins as a species: how we humans naturally think, and how we naturally search for new information because our consciousness drives us to need it.