Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

7.383445E-4 = product of:
  0.011075167 = sum of:
    0.011075167 = product of:
      0.022150334 = sum of:
        0.022150334 = weight(_text_:information in 991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022150334 = score(doc=991,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.4354273 = fieldWeight in 991, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Multitasking is the human ability to handle the demands of multiple tasks. Multitasking behavior involves the ordering of multiple tasks and switching between tasks. People often multitask when using information retrieval (IR) technologies as they seek information on more than one information problem over single or multiple search episodes. However, limited studies have examined how people order their information problems, especially during their Web search engine interaction. The aim of our exploratory study was to investigate assigned information problem ordering by forty (40) study participants engaged in Web search. Findings suggest that assigned information problem ordering was influenced by the following factors, including personal interest, problem knowledge, perceived level of information available on the Web, ease of finding information, level of importance and seeking information on information problems in order from general to specific. Personal interest and problem knowledge were the major factors during assigned information problem ordering. Implications of the findings and further research are discussed. The relationship between information problem ordering and gratification theory is an important area for further exploration.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.5, S.1366-1378

6.9767E-4 = product of:
  0.010465049 = sum of:
    0.010465049 = product of:
      0.020930098 = sum of:
        0.020930098 = weight(_text_:information in 4915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020930098 = score(doc=4915,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.41144013 = fieldWeight in 4915, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

For millennia humans have sought, organized, and used information as they learned and evolved patterns of human information behaviors to resolve their human problems and survive. However, despite the current focus an living in an "information age," we have a limited evolutionary understanding of human information behavior. In this article the authors examine the current three interdisciplinary approaches to conceptualizing how humans have sought information including (a) the everyday life information seeking-sense-making approach, (b) the information foraging approach, and (c) the problem-solution perspective an information seeking approach. In addition, due to the lack of clarity regarding the rote of information use in information behavior, a fourth information approach is provided based an a theory of information use. The use theory proposed starts from an evolutionary psychology notion that humans are able to adapt to their environment and survive because of our modular cognitive architecture. Finally, the authors begin the process of conceptualizing these diverse approaches, and the various aspects or elements of these approaches, within an integrated model with consideration of information use. An initial integrated model of these different approaches with information use is proposed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.1, S.25-35

Theme

Information

5.929055E-4 = product of:
  0.008893582 = sum of:
    0.008893582 = product of:
      0.017787164 = sum of:
        0.017787164 = weight(_text_:information in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017787164 = score(doc=600,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Recent studies show that humans engage in multitasking behaviors as they seek and search information retrieval (IR) systems for information on more than one topic at the same time. For example, a Web search session by a single user may consist of searching on single topics or multitasking. Findings are presented from four separate studies of the prevalence of multitasking information seeking and searching by Web, IR system, and library users. Incidence of multitasking identified in the four different studies included: (1) users of the Excite Web search engine who completed a survey form, (2) Excite Web search engine users filtered from an Excite transaction log from 20 December 1999, (3) mediated on-line databases searches, and (4) academic library users. Findings include: (1) multitasking information seeking and searching is a common human behavior, (2) users may conduct information seeking and searching on related or unrelated topics, (3) Web or IR multitasking search sessions are longer than single topic sessions, (4) mean number of topics per Web search ranged of 1 to more than 10 topics with a mean of 2.11 topic changes per search session, and (4) many Web search topic changes were from hobbies to shopping and vice versa. A more complex model of human seeking and searching levels that incorporates multitasking information behaviors is presented, and a theoretical framework for human information coordinating behavior (HICB) is proposed. Multitasking information seeking and searching is developing as major research area that draws together IR and information seeking studies toward a focus on IR within the context of human information behavior. Implications for models of information seeking and searching, IR/Web systems design, and further research are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.8, S.639-652

4.8335994E-4 = product of:
  0.007250399 = sum of:
    0.007250399 = product of:
      0.014500798 = sum of:
        0.014500798 = weight(_text_:information in 5240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014500798 = score(doc=5240,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 5240, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In this issue we begin with the first of four parts of a five part series of papers by Spink, Wilson, Ford, Foster, and Ellis. Spink, et alia, in the first section of this report set forth the design of a project to test whether existing models of the information search process are appropriate for an environment of mediated successive searching which they believe characterizes much information seeking behavior. Their goal is to develop an integrated model of the process. Data were collected from 198 individuals, 87 in Texas and 111 in Sheffield in the U.K., with individuals with real information needs engaged in interaction with operational information retrieval systems by use of transaction logs, recordings of interactions with intermediaries, pre, and post search interviews, questionnaire responses, relevance judgments of retrieved text, and responses to a test of cognitive styles. Questionnaires were based upon the Kuhlthau model, the Saracevic model, the Ellis model, and incorporated a visual analog scale to avoid a consistency bias.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.695-703

4.4124527E-4 = product of:
  0.0066186786 = sum of:
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 5239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=5239,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 5239, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In "Part 4. Cognitive Styles in Information Seeking,'' where Ford is the primary author, the results of the application of the Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis and the Pask's holist/serialist portion of the Ford's Study Process Questionnaire to the 111 U.K. participants. were correlated using Spearman's coefficient with reports of focused thinking, degree of change in the intermediary's perception of the problem and personal knowledge, problem stage, degree of differentiating activity, change in problem perception, engagement in exploring activity, changes in questioning, valuing of serendipitous information, and other variables. The results would indicate that field independent individuals report clearer more focused thinking, see themselves in an earlier problem stage, and report higher levels of change in perception of the problem. Holists value serendipity and report engagement in Kuhlthau's exploring stage. They are seen by intermediaries as exhibiting fewer changes in questioning behavior. A fifth section will appear in a later issue.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.728-735

3.9466174E-4 = product of:
  0.005919926 = sum of:
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 5232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=5232,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5232, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In "Part 2. Uncertainty and Its Correlates,'' where Wilson is the primary author, after a review of uncertainty as a concept in information seeking and decision research, it is hypothesized that if the Kuhlthau problem solving stage model is appropriate the searchers will recognize the stage in which they currently are operating. Secondly to test Wilson's contention that operationalized uncertainty would be useful in characterizing users, it is hypothesized that uncertainty will decrease as the searcher proceeds through problem stages and after the completion of the search. A review of pre and post search interviews reveals that uncertainty can be operationalized, and that academic researchers have no difficulty with a stage model of the information seeking process. Uncertainty is unrelated to sex, age, or discipline, but is related to problem stage and domain knowledge. Both concepts appear robust.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.704-715

2.79068E-4 = product of:
  0.0041860198 = sum of:
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=5233,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5233, 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=5233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.883-892

2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 3910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=3910,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3910, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Web queries in question format are becoming a common element of a user's interaction with Web search engines. Web search services such as Ask Jeeves - a publicly accessible question and answer (Q&A) search engine - request users to enter question format queries. This paper provides results from a study examining queries in question format submitted to two different Web search engines - Ask Jeeves that explicitly encourages queries in question format and the Excite search service that does not explicitly encourage queries in question format. We identify the characteristics of queries in question format in two different data sets: (1) 30,000 Ask Jeeves queries and 15,575 Excite queries, including the nature, length, and structure of queries in question format. Findings include: (1) 50% of Ask Jeeves queries and less than 1% of Excite were in question format, (2) most users entered only one query in question format with little query reformulation, (3) limited range of formats for queries in question format - mainly "where", "what", or "how" questions, (4) most common question query format was "Where can I find ..." for general information on a topic, and (5) non-question queries may be in request format. Overall, four types of user Web queries were identified: keyword, Boolean, question, and request. These findings provide an initial mapping of the structure and content of queries in question and request format. Implications for Web search services are discussed.

Source

Information processing and management. 38(2002) no.4, S.453-471

2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 5242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=5242,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5242, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.716-727

1.9733087E-4 = product of:
  0.002959963 = sum of:
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 2091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=2091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2091, 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=2091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.3, S.1251-1266

1.9733087E-4 = product of:
  0.002959963 = sum of:
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 2936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=2936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2936, 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=2936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1358-1371