Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013968108 = product of:
  0.055872433 = sum of:
    0.055872433 = weight(_text_:data in 990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055872433 = score(doc=990,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.46216056 = fieldWeight in 990, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=990)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The article employs deep log analysis (DLA) techniques, a more sophisticated form of transaction log analysis, to demonstrate what usage data can disclose about information seeking behaviour of virtual scholars - academics, and researchers. DLA works with the raw server log data, not the processed, pre-defined and selective data provided by journal publishers. It can generate types of analysis that are not generally available via proprietary web logging software because the software filters out relevant data and makes unhelpful assumptions about the meaning of the data. DLA also enables usage data to be associated with search/navigational and/or user demographic data, hence the name 'deep'. In this connection the usage of two digital journal libraries, those of EmeraldInsight, and Blackwell Synergy are investigated. The information seeking behaviour of nearly three million users is analyzed in respect to the extent to which they penetrate the site, the number of visits made, as well as the type of items and content they view. The users are broken down by occupation, place of work, type of subscriber ("Big Deal", non-subscriber, etc.), geographical location, type of university (old and new), referrer link used, and number of items viewed in a session.

0.0074662673 = product of:
  0.02986507 = sum of:
    0.02986507 = weight(_text_:data in 722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02986507 = score(doc=722,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 722, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=722)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

There is very little qualitative data on what impact the Internet is having on information seeking in the workplace. Using open-ended interviews, questionnaires and observation, the impact of the Internet on the British Media was assessed. The focus was largely on newspapers, with The Guardian being covered in some depth. Over 300 journalists and media librarians were surveyed. It was found that amongst traditional journalists use was light. Poor access to the Internet - and good access to other information resources - were largely the reasons for this. Of the journalists it was mainly the older and more senior journalists and the New Media journalists who used the Internet. Librarians were also significant users. Searching the World Wide Web was the principal Internet activity and use was generally conservative in character. Newspapers and official sites were favoured, and searches were mainly of a fact-checking nature. Email was used on a very limited scale and was not regarded as a serious journalistic tool. Non-users were partly put off by the Internet's potential for overloading them with information and its reputation for producing information of suspect quality. Users generally dismissed these concerns, dealing with potential overload and quality problems largely by using authoritative sites and exploiting the lower quality data where it was needed. Where the Internet has been used it has not been at the expense of other information sources or communication channels, but online hosts seem to be at most risk in the future.

0.0063353376 = product of:
  0.02534135 = sum of:
    0.02534135 = weight(_text_:data in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02534135 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Collating data from a number of log and questionnaire studies conducted largely into the use of a range of consumer health digital information platforms, Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (Ciber) researchers describe some new thoughts on characterising (and naming) information seeking behaviour in the digital environment, and in so doing, suggest a new typology of digital users. The characteristic behaviour found is one of bouncing in which users seldom penetrate a site to any depth, tend to visit a number of sites for any given information need and seldom return to sites they once visited. They tend to "feed" for information horizontally, and whether they search a site of not depends heavily on "digital visibility", which in turn creates all the conditions for "bouncing". The question whether this type of information seeking represents a form of "dumbing down or up", and what it all means for publishers, librarians and information providers, who might be working on other, possible outdated usage paradigms, is discussed.

0.0063353376 = product of:
  0.02534135 = sum of:
    0.02534135 = weight(_text_:data in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02534135 = score(doc=2566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The study aims to examines two aspects of information seeking behaviour of physicists and astronomers including methods applied for keeping up-to-date and methods used for finding articles. The relationship between academic status and research field of users with their information seeking behaviour was investigated. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using a questionnaire survey of PhD students and staff of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at University College London; 114 people (47.1 per cent response rate) participated in the survey. Findings - The study reveals differences among subfields of physics and astronomy in terms of information-seeking behaviour, highlights the need for and the value of looking at narrower subject communities within disciplines for a deeper understanding of the information behaviour of scientists. Originality/value - The study is the first to deeply investigate intradisciplinary dissimilarities of information-seeking behaviour of scientists in a discipline. It is also an up-to-date account of information seeking behaviour of physicists and astronomers.

0.0063353376 = product of:
  0.02534135 = sum of:
    0.02534135 = weight(_text_:data in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02534135 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An international survey of over 3,600 researchers examined how trustworthiness and quality are determined for making decisions on scholarly reading, citing, and publishing and how scholars perceive changes in trust with new forms of scholarly communication. Although differences in determining trustworthiness and authority of scholarly resources exist among age groups and fields of study, traditional methods and criteria remain important across the board. Peer review is considered the most important factor for determining the quality and trustworthiness of research. Researchers continue to read abstracts, check content for sound arguments and credible data, and rely on journal rankings when deciding whether to trust scholarly resources in reading, citing, or publishing. Social media outlets and open access publications are still often not trusted, although many researchers believe that open access has positive implications for research, especially if the open access journals are peer reviewed.

0.0042235586 = product of:
  0.016894234 = sum of:
    0.016894234 = weight(_text_:data in 5832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016894234 = score(doc=5832,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.120893985 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03823278 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 5832, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5832)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study set out to determine: (1) what were the searching characteristics of end-users in a non-academic environment and explain this in the light of their information needs; (2) whether these characteristics were those that were ascribed to end users in the professional literature; (3) whether they differed materially from those of information professionals working in the same fields. Searching characteristics were interpreted in their widest sense to include: command utilisation/knowledge; search success a satisfaction; volume of searching; searching style / approach; duration of searches; file selection; willingness to delegate and levels of training. These issues were explored in relation to 2 practitioner groups - journalists from he Guardian newspaper, and politicians from The House of Commons. Comparative data were also sought from information professionals in these 2 organisations. A mixture of social and statistical methods was used to monitor end-user and professional searching, though transactional log analysis was strongly featured. Altogether the searching behaviour of 170 end users was evaluated in the light of the searching behaviour of 70 librarians. The principal findings were that: in some respects end users did conform to the picture that information professionals have of them: they did seartch with a limited range of commands; more of their searches produced no results, and search statements were simplly constructed. But in other respects they confounded their image - they could be very quick and economical searchers, and they did not display meters of print-out. However, there were variations between individual end users, and it was often possible to find an end-user group that matched an information professional group on one aspect of online searching or another. The online behaviour of end users was very much related to their general information seeking behaviour; and to the fact that they were not trained