Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028345197 = product of:
  0.08503559 = sum of:
    0.052265707 = weight(_text_:web in 3148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052265707 = score(doc=3148,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=3148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3148)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.024123162 = product of:
  0.072369486 = sum of:
    0.054316122 = weight(_text_:web in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054316122 = score(doc=2747,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 2747, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2747)
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=2747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2747, 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=2747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This study focuses on the task as a fundamental factor in the context of information seeking. The purpose of the study is to characterize kinds of tasks and to examine how different kinds of task give rise to different kinds of information-seeking behavior on the Web. For this, a model for information-seeking behavior was used employing dimensions of information-seeking strategies (ISS), which are based on several behavioral dimensions. The analysis of strategies was based on data collected through an experiment designed to observe users' behaviors. Three tasks were assigned to 30 graduate students and data were collected using questionnaires, search logs, and interviews. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data identified 14 distinct information-seeking strategies. The analysis showed significant differences in the frequencies and patterns of ISS employed between three tasks. The results of the study are intended to facilitate the development of task-based information-seeking models and to further suggest Web information system designs that support the user's diverse tasks.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:54:15

0.009717524 = product of:
  0.058305144 = sum of:
    0.058305144 = product of:
      0.11661029 = sum of:
        0.11661029 = weight(_text_:programs in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661029 = score(doc=463,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.45288983 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary field known as digital humanities (DH) is represented in various forms in the teaching and research practiced in iSchools. Building on the work of an iSchools organization committee charged with exploring digital humanities curricula, we present findings from a series of related studies exploring aspects of DH teaching, education, and research in iSchools, often in collaboration with other units and disciplines. Through a survey of iSchool programs and an online DH course registry, we investigate the various education models for DH training found in iSchools, followed by a detailed look at DH courses and curricula, explored through analysis of course syllabi and course descriptions. We take a brief look at collaborative disciplines with which iSchools cooperate on DH research projects or in offering DH education. Next, we explore DH careers through an analysis of relevant job advertisements. Finally, we offer some observations about the management and administrative challenges and opportunities related to offering a new iSchool DH program. Our results provide a snapshot of the current state of digital humanities in iSchools which may usefully inform the design and evolution of new DH programs, degrees, and related initiatives.

0.008245593 = product of:
  0.049473554 = sum of:
    0.049473554 = product of:
      0.09894711 = sum of:
        0.09894711 = weight(_text_:programs in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09894711 = score(doc=4812,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.38428974 = fieldWeight in 4812, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4812)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article, findings from a study an the diffusion and adoption of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) within the U.S. archival community are reported. Using E. M. Rogers' (1995) theory of the diffusion of innovations as a theoretical framework, the authors surveyed 399 archives and manuscript repositories that sent participants to EAD workshops from 1993-2002. Their findings indicated that EAD diffusion and adoption are complex phenomena. While the diffusion pattern mirrored that of MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), overall adoption was slow. Only 42% of the survey respondents utilized EAD in their descriptive programs. Critical factors inhibiting adoption include the small staff size of many repositories, the lack of standardization in archival descriptive practices, a multiplicity of existing archival access tools, insufficient institutional infrastructure, and difficulty in maintaining expertise.

0.007723937 = product of:
  0.04634362 = sum of:
    0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04634362 = score(doc=4678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 4678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4678)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet, unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and journal publications are, considering an article as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze the publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more articles, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in journals. Importantly, conference articles seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to journal publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on journal publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.

0.0075439056 = product of:
  0.045263432 = sum of:
    0.045263432 = weight(_text_:web in 1666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045263432 = score(doc=1666,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 2936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=2936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2936)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Scholars have often relied on name initials to resolve name ambiguities in large-scale coauthorship network research. This approach bears the risk of incorrectly merging or splitting author identities. The use of initial-based disambiguation has been justified by the assumption that such errors would not affect research findings too much. This paper tests that assumption by analyzing coauthorship networks from five academic fields-biology, computer science, nanoscience, neuroscience, and physics-and an interdisciplinary journal, PNAS. Name instances in data sets of this study were disambiguated based on heuristics gained from previous algorithmic disambiguation solutions. We use disambiguated data as a proxy of ground-truth to test the performance of three types of initial-based disambiguation. Our results show that initial-based disambiguation can misrepresent statistical properties of coauthorship networks: It deflates the number of unique authors, number of components, average shortest paths, clustering coefficient, and assortativity, while it inflates average productivity, density, average coauthor number per author, and largest component size. Also, on average, more than half of top 10 productive or collaborative authors drop off the lists. Asian names were found to account for the majority of misidentification by initial-based disambiguation due to their common surname and given name initials.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 3989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=3989,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.