Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

3.5022903E-4 = product of:
  0.008055268 = sum of:
    0.008055268 = product of:
      0.016110536 = sum of:
        0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 5242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016110536 = score(doc=5242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5242, 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=5242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:29:18

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 4472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=4472,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4472, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4472)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.1, S.30-48

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 5240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=5240,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 5240, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 2420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=2420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 2420, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

The primary aim of the study was to investigate the effect of the absence of postings information on online searches and searching behaviour and these results were reported in Journal of information science 20(1994) no.1. The secondary aim, reported here, was to assess the cognitive styles of the participants to ensure that the population was sufficiently vareid in this respect and to investigate possible correlations between cognitive ability and searching behaviour. Throughout the project, searches were made by postgraduates at the department of information studies, University of Sheffield using the LISA database on CD-ROM. A total of 67 searchers carried out 275 searches, both with and without postings information. Reports significant differences in both searching behaviour and search outcomes obtained by those with different learning styles, with and without postings information. Significant correlations were found between cognitice styles and online searching. Searchers characterized by different learning styles tend to adopt different search strategies and strategies associated with comprehension and operation learning styles result in qualitatively different searching performance. Searching approaches associated with a versatile style are the most effective. Making feedback in the form of postings available enables comprehension and operation learners, and field independent searchers, to change their apporach in qualitatively different ways. Other findings are reported and discussed

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 5167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=5167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 5167, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

In this issue Ford, Miller and Moss utilize 68 volunteers from a population of 250 Master's students to complete on the web three search tasks with clear fact based goals and three or less facets. One task required broadening the search concepts from those given, a second provided a specific terminology for one facet but required a second facet that would require translation, and the third required general to specific transformation. The students were measured as to their performance on Entewistle's Revised Inventory of Approaches to Studying providing values for ten study variables and asked to assess their experience on the Internet, with Alta Vista, and with Boolean search. Searches were conducted on Alta Vista using Netscape Navigator 4 with participants free to choose and switch Boolean, best match or combined search modes at will while a front end script recorded all submitted searches and help access. Search related variables extracted were from Boolean only queries, best match only queries, and combined queries. Factor analyses were conducted on all variables for each search mode for each search. In task one Boolean is differentiated from best match search by sharing high loads on active interest, intention to reproduce, fear of failure, and relating ideas. The combined searcher is linked with the best match searcher with low active interest, low intention to reproduce and low fear of failure. In task 2 Boolean is differentiated from best match search by sharing high loads on intention to reproduce and low on intention to understand. Best match loads positively with intention to understand and negatively with intention to reproduce. Combined searching linked with both good and with poor time management. In task 3 the loads mimic task 1. It seems Boolean is consistently linked to a reproductive rather than a meaning seeking approach, but also with high levels of interest and fear of failure. Best match associates with the converse of these measures.