Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0044962796 = product of:
  0.031473957 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=521,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Applying text mining techniques to legal issues has been an emerging research topic in recent years. Although some previous studies focused on assisting professionals in the retrieval of related legal documents, they did not take into account the general public and their difficulty in describing legal problems in professional legal terms. Because this problem has not been addressed by previous research, this study aims to design a text-mining-based method that allows the general public to use everyday vocabulary to search for and retrieve criminal judgments. The experimental results indicate that our method can help the general public, who are not familiar with professional legal terms, to acquire relevant criminal judgments more accurately and effectively.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.280-290

0.0040278174 = product of:
  0.02819472 = sum of:
    0.024158856 = weight(_text_:web in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024158856 = score(doc=4431,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24981049 = fieldWeight in 4431, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4431)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 4431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=4431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4431)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The recent explosion of the Internet and the WWW has made digital libraries popular. Easy access to a digital library is provided by commercially available Web browsers, which provide a user-friendly interface. To retrieve documents of interest, the user is provided with a search interface that may only consist of one input field and one push button. Most users type in a single keyword, click the button, and hope for the best. The result of a query using this kind of search interface can consist of a large unordered set of documents, or a ranked list of documents based on the freuqency of the keywords. Both lists can contain articles unrelated to the user's inquiry unless a sophisticated search was performed and the user knows exactly what to look for. More sophisticated algorithms for ranking the search results according to how well they meet the users needs as expressed in the search input may help. However, what is desperately needed are software tools that can analyze the search result and manipulate large hierarchies of data graphically. In this article we describe the design of a language-independent document classification systems being developed to help users of the Florida Center for Library Automation analyze search query results. Easy access through the Web is provided, as well as a graphical user interface to display the classification results. We also describe the use of this system to retrieve and analyze sets of documents from public Web sites

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.3, S.216-227

0.0037513655 = product of:
  0.026259556 = sum of:
    0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011280581 = score(doc=1870,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
    0.014978974 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014978974 = score(doc=1870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The current research explores how intermediaries seek information from patrons, in particular by analyzing intermediaries' elicitation utterances through three dimensions-linguistic forms, utterance purposes, and communicative functions-to determine whether indeed any dimension appeared consistently, to be called "elicitation styles." Five intermediaries from four academic libraries (three national university libraries, one private university library) and one research institute library participated in the study. Thirty patrons with 30 genuine search requests were recruited; thus, 30 patron/intermediary information retrieval interactions making a total of 30 encounters were collected. Video/audio data were taped. Dialogues between patron and intermediary were transcribed. Statistical analysis revealed three types of elicitation styles among the five intermediaries, labeled, (1) situationally oriented, (2) functionally oriented, and (3) stereotyped. This study seeks an explanation for different elicitation styles. Qualitative analysis was applied to investigate "inquiring minds." An inquiring mind is termed to represent a mentality or tendency that one elicits certain threads of questions influenced by Professional beliefs, individual characteristics, tasks, goals, and interactional contexts in conversation. The results of qualitative analysis specified three modes of inquiring minds of the intermediaries, namely: (1) information problem detection, (2) query formulation process, and (3) database instructions.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1117-1133

9.5338316E-4 = product of:
  0.013347364 = sum of:
    0.013347364 = weight(_text_:information in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013347364 = score(doc=615,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Information behavior and practices (IBP) research has been repeatedly criticized for having little impact on information systems development (ISD). Claiming that there is a complete disconnect would be an exaggeration but it is apparent that it is not always easy to translate findings of IBP research to workable design recommendations. Based on a reading of earlier literature and a closer investigation of three illustrative example contexts, this article underlines that the value of IBP research for ISD lies in its capability to inform ISD of the variety of ways people deal with information beyond individual systems, their own wants and designers' assumptions. Moreover, it highlights that the implications of information systems go beyond their primary users. Instead of overemphasizing the contextuality of findings, a part of IBP research would benefit from an increased focus on explicating its epistemological extents and limits and identifying, which findings are transferable, what distinguishes specific contexts, what are their defining constraints and priorities, and what aspects of their uniqueness are assumptions and simple clichés.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.7, S.1043-1057

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 4939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=4939,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4939, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4939)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Building upon previous research on the concepts of inquiring minds and elicitation styles (Wu, 2005; Wu & Liu, 2003), this study aims to identify the relationships between the theoretical constructs of elicitation behavior and user satisfaction in terms of the relevance, utility, and satisfaction of search results, search interaction processes, and overall search activities. Descriptive statistical analysis is applied to compare the user satisfaction ratings with respect to the concepts of inquiring minds and elicitation styles. The results suggest that the stereotyped elicitation style received the lowest user satisfaction ratings compared with functionally and situationally oriented styles. It is suggested that the intermediaries take into account the characteristics of search questions and, accordingly, adapt their professional mindsets to search interview situations; that is, using an inquiring mind in the query formulation process as default mode with functional and situational styles of elicitations would be helpful for enhancing the user's satisfaction ratings. Future research is suggested to better understand and to improve professional talk in information services.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2396-2403

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 5096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=5096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5096)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Information processing and management. 53(2017) no.4, S.851-870

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 463, 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=463)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.188-203