Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 1538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=1538,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 1538, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1538)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Annotations, in the form of markings and comments on the text, are often part of scholarly work. Digital platforms increasingly allow these annotations to be shared in group and public environments. To explore scholars' current behavior and attitudes toward shared annotations, semistructured interviews with 20 doctoral students were conducted. The findings suggest that sociocognitive processes are integral to scholars' creation and use of shared annotations. However, although scholars clearly support creating and using shared annotations, several sociocognitive hurdles have hampered adoption of scholarly shared annotation systems. This article discusses common themes emerging from the findings and relates them to research on shared annotations.

0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=87,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the summer of 2008 all University of North Carolina libraries switched from a traditional library catalog interface supporting text-based searching (TextOnly) to a text and facet-based interface (TextFacet) to improve users' search experiences. This study seeks to understand the differences between these two interfaces and how they affect the search experience of the novice user. In this study, 40 participants were asked to search for resources using both interfaces. Their search times and accuracy were measured across three types of search tasks (known, partially known, and exploratory). After completing the searches, they were asked a series of questions about their experiences. The data were analyzed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in both search interfaces. Thirty-six out of 40 participants preferred the TextFacet interface to the TextOnly interface. Using three dependent variables-time, accuracy, and rating-the two interfaces were compared and interactions were tested with the three task types. Search times for the TextFacet were shorter and participants preferred the TextFacet search interface over the TextOnly search interface. Performances across the three task types were different in terms of search time. The partially known and exploratory task types showed similar distributions for rating and accuracy. These distributions were distinctly different from the known task type. The results of this study may assist libraries in developing improved library catalog search interfaces that utilize facets as well as text searching.

0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=3449,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As new technologies and information delivery systems emerge, the way in which individuals search for information to support research, teaching, and creative activities is changing. To understand different aspects of researchers' information-seeking behavior, this article surveyed 2,063 academic researchers in natural science, engineering, and medical science from five research universities in the United States. A Web-based, in-depth questionnaire was designed to quantify researchers' information searching, information use, and information storage behaviors. Descriptive statistics are reported. Additionally, analysis of results is broken out by institutions to compare differences among universities. Significant findings are reported, with the biggest changes because of increased utilization of electronic methods for searching, sharing, and storing scholarly content, as well as for utilizing library services. Generally speaking, researchers in the five universities had similar information-seeking behavior, with small differences because of varying academic unit structures and myriad library services provided at the individual institutions.