Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015969018 = product of:
  0.06387607 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=1040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 1040, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1040)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Exploratory searches involve significant cognitively demanding aiming at learning and investigation. However, users gain little support from search engines for their cognitive and metacognitive activities (e.g., discovery, synthesis, planning, transformation, monitoring, and reflection) during exploratory searches. To better support the exploratory search process, we designed a new search assistance tool called OrgBox. OrgBox allows users to drag-and-drop information they find during searches into "boxes" and "items" that can be created, labeled, and rearranged on a canvas. We conducted a controlled, within-subjects user study with 24 participants to evaluate the OrgBox versus a baseline tool called the OrgDoc that supported rich-text features. Our findings show that participants perceived the OrgBox tool to provide more support for grouping and reorganizing information, tracking thought processes, planning and monitoring search and task processes, and gaining a visual overview of the collected information. The usability test reveals users' preferences for simplicity, familiarity, and flexibility of the design of OrgBox, along with technical problems such as delay of response and restrictions of use. Our results have implications for the design of search-assisting systems that encourage cognitive and metacognitive activities during exploratory search processes.

0.005363957 = product of:
  0.021455828 = sum of:
    0.021455828 = product of:
      0.042911656 = sum of:
        0.042911656 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042911656 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.