Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Shepherd, M."
  • × author_ss:"Watters, C."
  1. Shepherd, M.; Watters, C.: Boundary objects and the digital library (2006) 0.00 
    0.00296799 = product of:
  0.00890397 = sum of:
    0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 1490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00890397 = score(doc=1490,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1490, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1490)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Boundary objects are entities shared by different communities but used differently by each group. The paper explores the multi faceted aspects of boundary objects in digital libraries. The issue of semantic interoperability from the perspective of 'communities of practice' and 'communities of interest' has been explored. While the concept of boundary objects holds some promise of resolving this problem, an efficient solution depends on how knowledge is represented so that it can be shared among various participants in a meaningful manner. Classification schemes can be used as a standard to implement boundary objects to bridge access to shared information resources for different users. The value and utility of adoption of "Absolute Syntax" for representation of subjects as a framework for boundary objects needs to be explored.
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
    Type
    a
  2. Shepherd, M.; Duffy, J.F.J.; Watters, C.; Gugle, N.: ¬The role of user profiles for news filtering (2001) 0.00 
    0.002473325 = product of:
  0.0074199745 = sum of:
    0.0074199745 = weight(_text_:a in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074199745 = score(doc=5585,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Most on-line news sources are electronic versions of "ink-on-paper" newspapers. These are versions that have been filtered, from the mass of news produced each day, by an editorial board with a given community profile in mind. As readers, we choose the filter rather than choose the stories. New technology, however, provides the potential for personalized versions to be filtered automatically from this mass of news on the basis of user profiles. People read the news for many reasons: to find out "what's going on," to be knowledgeable members of a community, and because the activity itself is pleasurable. Given this, we ask the question, "How much filtering is acceptable to readers?" In this study, an evaluation of user preference for personal editions versus community editions of on-line news was performed. A personalized edition of a local newspaper was created for each subject based on an elliptical model that combined the user profile and community profile as represented by the full edition of the local newspaper. The amount of emphasis given the user profile and the community profile was varied to test the subjects' reactions to different amounts of personalized filtering. The task was simply, "read the news," rather than any subject specific information retrieval task. The results indicate that users prefer the coarse-grained community filters to fine-grained personalized filters
    Type
    a
  3. Kellar, M.; Watters, C.; Shepherd, M.: ¬A field study characterizing Web-based information seeking tasks (2007) 0.00 
    0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=335,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 335, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=335)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Previous studies have examined various aspects of user behavior on the Web, including general information-seeking patterns, search engine use, and revisitation habits. Little research has been conducted to study how users navigate and interact with their Web browser across different information-seeking tasks. We have conducted a field study of 21 participants, in which we logged detailed Web usage and asked participants to provide task categorizations of their Web usage based on the following categories: Fact Finding, Information Gathering, Browsing, and Transactions. We used implicit measures logged during each task session to provide usage measures such as dwell time, number of pages viewed, and the use of specific browser navigation mechanisms. We also report on differences in how participants interacted with their Web browser across the range of information-seeking tasks. Within each type of task, we found several distinguishing characteristics. In particular, Information Gathering tasks were the most complex; participants spent more time completing this task, viewed more pages, and used the Web browser functions most heavily during this task. The results of this analysis have been used to provide implications for future support of information seeking on the Web as well as direction for future research in this area.
    Type
    a

Authors

Themes