Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029794488 = product of:
  0.04469173 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 60) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=60,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 60, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=60)
    0.03672778 = product of:
      0.07345556 = sum of:
        0.07345556 = weight(_text_:22 in 60) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07345556 = score(doc=60,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 60, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=60)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

2. 2.2003 18:31:22

0.014626579 = product of:
  0.021939868 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=2745,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Relevance judgments occur within an information search process, where time, context and situation can impact the judgments. The determination of relevance is dependent on a number of factors and variables which include the criteria used to determine relevance. The relevance judgment process and the criteria used to make those judgments are manifestations of the cognitive changes which occur during the information search process. Understanding why these relevance criteria choices are made, and how they vary over the information search process can provide important information about the dynamic relevance judgment process. This information can be used to guide the development of more adaptive information retrieval systems which respond to the cognitive changes of users during the information search process. The research data analyzed here was collected in two separate studies which examined a subject's relevance judgment over an information search process. Statistical analysis was used to examine these results and determine if there were relationships between criteria selections, relevance judgments, and the subject's progression through the information search process. Findings confirm and extend findings of previous studies, providing strong statistical evidence of an association between the information search process and the choices of relevance criteria by users, and identifying specific changes in the user preferences for specific criteria over the course of the information search process.

Date

29. 1.2016 19:22:14

Type

a

0.00395732 = product of:
  0.01187196 = sum of:
    0.01187196 = weight(_text_:a in 6645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01187196 = score(doc=6645,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 6645, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6645)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There is some evidence to suggest that investment in information technology (IT) is nothing more than an expensive black-hole for cash. Sets out the reasons why investment in IT is no guarantee of business success. Offers suggestions as to how to redress the balance between technology and cost-effectiveness such as obtaining a specifically trained information manager who understands business and corporate objectives as well as the underlying technological principles. Also emphasizes the need for a new flexible soft systems approach to the development of information systems and for computer-literate staff to man them

Type

a

0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=11,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 11, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=11)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0029264777 = product of:
  0.008779433 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=3608,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine changes in relevance assessments, specifically the selection of relevance criteria by subjects as they move through the information search process. Design/methodology/approach - The paper examines the relevance criteria choices of 39 subjects in relation to search stage. Subjects were assigned a specific search task in a controlled test. Statistics were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics and the chi-square goodness-of-fit tests. Findings - The statistically significant findings identified a number of commonly reported relevance criteria, which varied over an information search process for relevant and partially relevant judgments. These results provide statistical confirmations of previous studies, and extend these findings identifying specific criteria for both relevant and partially relevant judgments. Research limitations/implications - The study only examines a short duration search process and since the convenience sample of subjects were from similar backgrounds and were assigned similar tasks, the study did not explicitly examine the impact of contextual factors such as user experience, background or task in relation to relevance criteria choices. Practical implications - The paper has implications for the development of search systems which are adaptive and recognize the cognitive changes which occur during the information search process. Examining and identifying relevance criteria beyond topicality and the importance of those criteria to a user can help in the generation of better search queries. Originality/value - The paper adds more rigorous statistical analysis to the study of relevance criteria and the information search process.

Type

a