Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02002601 = product of:
  0.07009103 = sum of:
    0.020927707 = weight(_text_:systems in 6549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020927707 = score(doc=6549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 6549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6549)
    0.049163327 = sum of:
      0.021743685 = weight(_text_:science in 6549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021743685 = score(doc=6549,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 6549, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6549)
      0.027419642 = weight(_text_:29 in 6549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027419642 = score(doc=6549,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04011181 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 6549, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6549)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Heterogeneous information environments may cause many problems for knowledge managers. Common characteristics of these environments are complex work practices, non-standard problem solving techniques, and multiple reporting requirements. This paper presents some of the challenges to knowledge management revealed in a 1998 study of county judges and clerks in rural Texas courts. Both types of actors have complex job responsibilities with multiple facets. Their work practices are highly sophisticated, developed over many decades, and not easily transferable to digital environments. State oversight and reporting agencies play important roles in introducing information technologies into local court jurisdictions. The most important element that is missing from such initiatives, however, is a concern for integrated, practice-driven knowledge management processes. It is important to overcome the limited understanding that oversight agencies, technology vendors, and IT consulting firms have of local courts' work practices and knowledge management. To that end, the authors propose a model for integration of knowledge management work practices in local courts into large-scale state information systems. This model emphasizes the need for a holistic, well-integrated view of local practitioners' work and responsibilities

Date

29. 9.2001 20:54:34

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.008979997 = product of:
  0.031429987 = sum of:
    0.013046212 = product of:
      0.026092423 = sum of:
        0.026092423 = weight(_text_:science in 574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026092423 = score(doc=574,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 574, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.018383777 = weight(_text_:library in 574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018383777 = score(doc=574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=574)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A conceptually relaxed utilization of the variable "search experience" makes it difficult for researchers to perform meaningful cross-study comparisons. The purpose of this study was to examine how search experience is defined and measured when used as a research variable. We implemented a qualitative analysis of 32 library and information science (LIS) research articles. We found that there was inconsistent terminology usage and measurements. Specifically, there were 21 unique labels to describe the search experience and 18 different measurements. The majority of the studies used a generic label "search experience" and relied on the reader to grasp specific context of the electronic information retrieval environment to which the variable applies from the description of the overall research design. In addition, there was a strong preference for measures that represented subjective self-reporting about the level of exposure to some information retrieval system. It is evident that there is a need for articles to contain detailed definitions of search experience variables for readers to truly understand the findings.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1529-1546

0.005986665 = product of:
  0.020953326 = sum of:
    0.008697474 = product of:
      0.017394949 = sum of:
        0.017394949 = weight(_text_:science in 5465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017394949 = score(doc=5465,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 5465, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.012255851 = weight(_text_:library in 5465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012255851 = score(doc=5465,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 5465, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5465)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Practical implications The findings point to the importance of a prepared mind in facilitating serendipitous episodes. In the case of journalism, that means developing a heightened news sense and cultivating routines where they place themselves in trigger-rich environments. Pedagogically, journalism education must include courses in creative storytelling to help train the modern newspaper workforce in an ever-expanding and competitive media landscape. These courses, ideally paired with techniques and models from the field of information science and learning technologies, could help train young journalists in methods that enhance their ability to identify, seek and pursue serendipitous stories. Originality/value This paper fulfills a need in journalism studies in finding variability in news routines by utilizing an interdisciplinary approach that combines journalism studies and library and information science models to probe how journalists encounter ideas incidentally. Previous research in this area has focused on how news consumers serendipitously encounter information. This paper takes a fresh approach to explore how creative ideas are encountered serendipitously in the construction of news.

0.0029896726 = product of:
  0.020927707 = sum of:
    0.020927707 = weight(_text_:systems in 2036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020927707 = score(doc=2036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12327058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04011181 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2036)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper reportes a study that investigated the effects of conceptual description and search practice on users' mental models and information seeking in a case-based reasoning retrieval (CBR) system with a best match search mechanism. This study also found examined how the presence of a mental model affects the users' search performance and satisfaction in this system. The results of this study revealed that the conceptual description and search practice treatments do not have significantly different effects on the types of user's mental models, search correctness, and search satisfaction. However, the search practice group spent significantly less time than the conceptual description group in finding the results. Qualitative analysis for the subjects' post mental models revealed that subjects in the conceptual description group seem to have more complete mental models of the best match system than those in the search practice group. This study also that subjects with the best match mental models have significantly higher search correctness and search result satisfaction than subjects without the best match mental models. However, the best match mental models do not guarantee less search time in finding the results. This study did not find a significant correlation among search time, search correctness and search satisfaction. The study concludes with suggestions for future research and implications for system developers who are interested in CBR retrieval systems.

0.001098222 = product of:
  0.0076875538 = sum of:
    0.0076875538 = product of:
      0.0153751075 = sum of:
        0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153751075 = score(doc=4977,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04011181 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4977, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4977)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.225-241