Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009527635 = product of:
  0.07622108 = sum of:
    0.055614963 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055614963 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3094179 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
    0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02060612 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This article elaborates the picture of information use from the perspective of interpreting informational cues about the attributes of entities. It is assumed that such activity draws on cognitive mechanisms that are employed as the constituents of diverse interpretation approaches to informational cues. The empirical data of the study were gathered by means of think aloud method from 16 prospective homebuyers in 2008. The participants interpreted informational cues available in announcements published in a printed housing listing issue and a Web-based information system serving the needs of prospective homebuyers. The data were examined by means of qualitative content analysis. By drawing on the findings of Zhang and her associates, the study revealed 7 cognitive mechanisms: identification of key attributes, specification, evaluation, comparison by similarity, comparison by differentiation, explanation, and conclusion. Three major approaches employed in the interpetation of informational cues were identified. The descriptive-evaluative approach draws on the identification and evaluation of individual attributes of an entity. The comparative approach is more sophisticated because it is based on the evaluation of the attributes by their perceived similarity or differentiation. Finally, the explanatory approach draws on the identification of attributes with causal potential.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2244-2254

0.0036108557 = product of:
  0.05777369 = sum of:
    0.05777369 = weight(_text_:author in 719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05777369 = score(doc=719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=719)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Issues of becoming an Internet user primarily in non-work contexts are discussed. The author reviews individual, social and economic factors motivating network use. Main findings of an empirical study based on the interviews of 23 Finns in 1997 are analysed. In addition, comparisons are made with the findings of the Consumer Research Project (1996-98), conducted in Finland. The main motivating factors leading to network use were the requirements of work and study; also making everyday transactions easier, for example by home banking, was seen as important. The network connections were also acquired for keeping in contact with others and for hobbies, whereas entertainment purposes were not valued.

0.0030950191 = product of:
  0.049520306 = sum of:
    0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049520306 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The author reflects the conceptual and practical questions of network competence in the context of information seeking. Network competence is seen as one of the information-related competences and is defined as the mastery of four major areas: knowledge of information resources available on the Internet, skilled use of the ICT tools to access information, judgment of the relevance of information, and communication. Drawing on the ideas of the social cognitive theory developed by Albert Bandura, a model of network competence is introduced in order to discuss network competence "in action". In the model, network competence is put in practical context by relating five major factors: network competence, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, affective factors such as anxiety, and experiences received from information seeking on the Internet. Particular attention is devoted to the connections between network competence and self-efficacy which denote a person's judgment of his or her ability to organize and execute action, such as finding information on the Web.

0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1116-1125

0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.12, S.1709-1719

0.0011888248 = product of:
  0.019021196 = sum of:
    0.019021196 = product of:
      0.038042393 = sum of:
        0.038042393 = weight(_text_:ed in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038042393 = score(doc=3780,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.33337396 = fieldWeight in 3780, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates