Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.005702162 = product of:
  0.039915133 = sum of:
    0.034870304 = weight(_text_:web in 3148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034870304 = score(doc=3148,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 3148, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3148)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3148)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Compared to the early versions of smart phones, recent mobile devices have bigger screens that can present more web search results. Several previous studies have reported differences in user interaction between conventional desktop computer and mobile device-based web searches, so it is imperative to consider the differences in user behavior for web search engine interface design on mobile devices. However, it is still unknown how the diversification of screen sizes on hand-held devices affects how users search. In this article, we investigate search performance and behavior on three different small screen sizes: early smart phones, recent smart phones, and phablets. We found no significant difference with respect to the efficiency of carrying out tasks, however participants exhibited different search behaviors: less eye movement within top links on the larger screen, fast reading with some hesitation before choosing a link on the medium, and frequent use of scrolling on the small screen. This result suggests that the presentation of web search results for each screen needs to take into account differences in search behavior. We suggest several ideas for presentation design for each screen size.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2607-2619

0.0053332914 = product of:
  0.037333038 = sum of:
    0.03019857 = weight(_text_:web in 1666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03019857 = score(doc=1666,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 1666, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1666)
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 1666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=1666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1666)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In recent years, searching the web on mobile devices has become enormously popular. Because mobile devices have relatively small screens and show fewer search results, search behavior with mobile devices may be different from that with desktops or laptops. Therefore, examining these differences may suggest better, more efficient designs for mobile search engines. In this experiment, we use eye tracking to explore user behavior and performance. We analyze web searches with 2 task types on 2 differently sized screens: one for a desktop and the other for a mobile device. In addition, we examine the relationships between search performance and several search behaviors to allow further investigation of the differences engendered by the screens. We found that users have more difficulty extracting information from search results pages on the smaller screens, although they exhibit less eye movement as a result of an infrequent use of the scroll function. However, in terms of search performance, our findings suggest that there is no significant difference between the 2 screens in time spent on search results pages and the accuracy of finding answers. This suggests several possible ideas for the presentation design of search results pages on small devices.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.3, S.526-544

0.003211426 = product of:
  0.022479981 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 3989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=3989,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3989, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3989)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3989,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3989, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3989)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This study investigated factors that motivate or impede faculty participation in self-archiving practices-the placement of research work in various open access (OA) venues, ranging from personal Web pages to OA archives. The author's research design involves triangulation of survey and interview data from 17 Carnegie doctorate universities with DSpace institutional repositories. The analysis of survey responses from 684 professors and 41 telephone interviews identified seven significant factors: (a) altruism-the idea of providing OA benefits for users; (b) perceived self-archiving culture; (c) copyright concerns; (d) technical skills; (e) age; (f) perception of no harmful impact of self-archiving on tenure and promotion; and (g) concerns about additional time and effort. The factors are listed in descending order of their effect size. Age, copyright concerns, and additional time and effort are negatively associated with self-archiving, whereas remaining factors are positively related to it. Faculty are motivated by OA advantages to users, disciplinary norms, and no negative influence on academic reward. However, barriers to self-archiving-concerns about copyright, extra time and effort, technical ability, and age-imply that the provision of services to assist faculty with copyright management, and with technical and logistical issues, could encourage higher rates of self-archiving.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1909-1922

6.241359E-4 = product of:
  0.008737902 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=2346,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In many scientific fields, the order of coauthors on a paper conveys information about each individual's contribution to a piece of joint work. We argue that in prior network analyses of coauthorship networks, the information on ordering has been insufficiently considered because ties between authors are typically symmetrized. This is basically the same as assuming that each coauthor has contributed equally to a paper. We introduce a solution to this problem by adopting a coauthorship credit allocation model proposed by Kim and Diesner (2014), which in its core conceptualizes coauthoring as a directed, weighted, and self-looped network. We test and validate our application of the adopted framework based on a sample data of 861 authors who have published in the journal Psychometrika. The results suggest that this novel sociometric approach can complement traditional measures based on undirected networks and expand insights into coauthoring patterns such as the hierarchy of collaboration among scholars. As another form of validation, we also show how our approach accurately detects prominent scholars in the Psychometric Society affiliated with the journal.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2685-2696

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2936)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1446-1461

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=4678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4678)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.71-82

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5297)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.7, S.685-700