Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06220699 = product of:
  0.12441398 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.117351316 = weight(_text_:term in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.117351316 = score(doc=2881,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.5357528 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Proposes a model of the search term selection process based on an empirical study of professional searchers during the pre-online stage of the search process. The model chraracterises the selection of search terms as the navigation of different discourses. 6 discourses emerged as sources of search terms: controlled vocabularies, documents and the domain, the practice of indexing, clients' search request, databases and the searchers' own search experience. Searchers navigate the discourses dynamically and have preferences for certain discourses. Emphasises the multiplicity and complexity of sources of search terms, the dynamic nature of the search term selection process and the complex analysis and synthesis of differences and similarities among sources of search terms. Searchers may need to understand fundamental aspects of multiple discourses in order to select search terms

0.029337829 = product of:
  0.117351316 = sum of:
    0.117351316 = weight(_text_:term in 1667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.117351316 = score(doc=1667,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.5357528 = fieldWeight in 1667, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1667)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses a new model of search term selection and its implications. The model characterizes the selection of search terms as the navigation of multiple discourses, including controlled vocabularies, documents and their domains, the practice of indexing, clients' speech and search requests, databases and the searcher's own knowledge of the search process. Suggests that the multiple aspects of these discourses influences search term selection. The discourse of a controlled vocabulary is analyzed from various aspects and described as an example of a discourse. Professional searchers and the end users may benefit from adopting this new model of search term selection, learning to see alternative, effective search terms in addition to the words they would normally use. The model can also be incorporated in human computer interfaces of information retrieval systems to support the selection of search terms in a passive or active manner

0.013071639 = product of:
  0.026143279 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=293)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper presents an evolving framework for human information behaviour, including information exploration, seeking, filtering, use and dissemination. It is based on empirical studies of human information behaviour in a variety of settings (Iivonen & Sonnenwald, 1998; Sonnenwald, 1993, 1995, 1996) and theories from a variety of research traditions, including information science, communication, sociology and psychology that inform our understanding of human information behaviour. I begin formulating the framework by discussing fundamental concepts, such as context, situation and social networks. Building on these concepts, I propose a series of propositions that strive to elucidate the framework. Key ideas in the framework include the introduction of the role of social networks in information exploration, and the concept of an `information horizon' in which we can act to explore information.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:46:09

0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this issue Maglaughin and Sonnenwald provided 12 graduate students with searches related to the student's work and asked them to judge the twenty most recent retrieved representations by highlighting passages thought to contribute to relevance, marking out passages detracting from relevance, and providing a relevant, partially relevant or relevant judgement on each. By recorded interview they were asked about how these decisions were made and to describe the three classes of judgement. The union of criteria identified in past studies did not seem to fully capture the information supplied so a new set was produced and coding agreement found to be adequate. Twenty-nine criteria were identified and grouped into six categories based upon the focus of the criterion. Multiple criteria are used for most judgements, and most criteria may have either a positive or negative effect. Content was the most frequently mentioned criterion.