Search (29 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=1380,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1380, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1380)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study explores how the use of electronic information resources has influenced scholars' opinion of their work, and how this is connected to their publication productivity. The data consist of a nationwide Web-based survey of the end-users of FinELib, the Finnish Electronic Library, at all universities in Finland. Scholars feel that the use of electronic literature has improved their work considerably in several ways. This influence can be differentiated into two dimensions. The first one is improved accessibility and availability of literature, and the second is more directly related to the content and quality of scholarly work. The perceived improved access is positively associated with the number of international publications produced, among doctoral students in particular. The more direct influence of e-resource use on the content of scholarly work is, however, not associated with publication productivity. The results seem to imply that investments in academic digital libraries are beneficial for the researchers and for the universities.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=1797,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1797, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1797)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The authors introduce two semantics-based navigation applications that facilitate information-seeking activities in internal link-based web sites in Wikipedia. These applications aim to help users find concepts within a topic and related articles on a given topic quickly and then gain topical knowledge from internal link-based encyclopedia web sites. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The WNavis application consists of three information visualization (IV) tools which are a topic network, a hierarchy topic tree and summaries for topics. The WikiMap application consists of a topic network. The goal of the topic network and topic tree tools is to help users to find the major concepts of a topic and identify relationships between these major concepts easily. In addition, in order to locate specific information and enable users to explore and read topic-related articles quickly, the topic tree and summaries for topics tools support users to gain topical knowledge quickly. The authors then apply the k-clique of cohesive indicator to analyze the sub topics of the seed query and find out the best clustering results via the cosine measure. The authors utilize four metrics, which are correctness, time cost, usage behaviors, and satisfaction, to evaluate the three interfaces. These metrics measure both the outputs and outcomes of applications. As a baseline system for evaluation the authors used a traditional Wikipedia interface. For the evaluation, the authors used an experimental user study with 30 participants.
Findings - The results indicate that both WikiMap and WNavis supported users to identify concepts and their relations better compared to the baseline. In topical tasks WNavis over performed both WikiMap and the baseline system. Although there were no time differences in finding concepts or answering topical questions, the test systems provided users with a greater gain per time unit. The users of WNavis leaned on the hierarchy tree instead of other tools, whereas WikiMap users used the topic map. Research limitations/implications - The findings have implications for the design of IR support tools in knowledge-intensive web sites that help users to explore topics and concepts. Originality/value - The authors explored to what extent the use of each IV support tool contributed to successful exploration of topics in search tasks. The authors propose extended task-based evaluation measures to understand how each application provides useful context for users to accomplish the tasks and attain the search goals. That is, the authors not only evaluate the output of the search results, e.g. the number of relevant items retrieved, but also the outcome provided by the system for assisting users to attain the search goal.

0.001682769 = product of:
  0.010096614 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=643,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) is a research area both within Computer Science and Information Science. It has by and large two communities: a Computer Science oriented experimental approach and a user-oriented Information Science approach with a Social Science background. The communities hold a critical stance towards each other (e.g., Ingwersen, 1996), the latter suspecting the realism of the former, and the former suspecting the usefulness of the latter. Within Information Science the study of information seeking (IS) also has a Social Science background. There is a lot of research in each of these particular areas of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R). However, the three communities do not really communicate with each other. Why is this, and could the relationships be otherwise? Do the communities in fact belong together? Or perhaps each community is better off forgetting about the existence of the other two? We feel that the relationships between the research areas have not been properly analyzed. One way to analyze the relationships is to examine what each research area is trying to find out: which phenomena are being explained and how. We believe that IS&R research would benefit from being analytic about its frameworks, models and theories, not just at the level of meta-theories, but also much more concretely at the level of study designs. Over the years there have been calls for more context in the study of IS&R. Work tasks as well as cultural activities/interests have been proposed as the proper context for information access. For example, Wersig (1973) conceptualized information needs from the tasks perspective. He argued that in order to learn about information needs and seeking, one needs to take into account the whole active professional role of the individuals being investigated. Byström and Järvelin (1995) analysed IS processes in the light of tasks of varying complexity. Ingwersen (1996) discussed the role of tasks and their descriptions and problematic situations from a cognitive perspective on IR. Most recently, Vakkari (2003) reviewed task-based IR and Järvelin and Ingwersen (2004) proposed the extension of IS&R research toward the task context. Therefore there is much support to the task context, but how should it be applied in IS&R?

Source

New directions in cognitive information retrieval. Eds.: A. Spink, C. Cole

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=299,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Research in information science aims to comprehend the facilitation of access to information for supporting purposeful action. The major themes to be addressed have been how information is organized for access, how it is retrieved from storage, and how it is sought out and used for various purposes. Two central research areas in the field are information retrieval (IR) and information seeking (IS) (Vakkari & Rochester, 1998). Although intuitively the fields seem to be overlapping, their research communities have been active in their own enclosures. Few researchers have visited the neighboring side. However, there are researchers (Bates, 1989; Belkin & Vickery, 1986; Belkin, 1993; Ellis, 1989; Ingwersen, 1992, 1996; Järvelin 1987; Kuhlthau, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Saracevic & Kantor, 1988) who have stressed the need to connect results from both research traditions. IR can be seen as a part of a broader process of information seeking. By IS is understood a process of searching, obtaining and using information for a purpose (e.g., form a solution for a task) when a person does not have sufficient prior knowledge. By 1R is understood the use of an information system for obtaining relevant information for a purpose (e.g., a task). This implies that information systems are a specific means among other sources and channels for obtaining information.

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, Sheffield, UK, 1998. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=260,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Few studies have investigated how search behavior affects complex writing tasks. We analyze a dataset of 150 long essays whose authors searched the ClueWeb09 corpus for source material, while all querying, clicking, and writing activity was meticulously recorded. We model the effect of search and writing behavior on essay quality using path analysis. Since the boil-down and build-up writing strategies identified in previous research have been found to affect search behavior, we model each writing strategy separately. Our analysis shows that the search process contributes significantly to essay quality through both direct and mediated effects, while the author's writing strategy moderates this relationship. Our models explain 25-35% of the variation in essay quality through rather simple search and writing process characteristics alone, a fact that has implications on how search engines could personalize result pages for writing tasks. Authors' writing strategies and associated searching patterns differ, producing differences in essay quality. In a nutshell: essay quality improves if search and writing strategies harmonize-build-up writers benefit from focused, in-depth querying, while boil-down writers fare better with a broader and shallower querying strategy.

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=2884,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this paper, we focus an the effect of graded relevance an the results of interactive information retrieval (IR) experiments based an assigned search tasks in a test collection. A group of 26 subjects searched for four Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) topics using automatic and interactive query expansion based an relevance feedback. The TREC- and user-suggested pools of relevant documents were reassessed an a four-level relevance scale. The results show that the users could identify nearly all highly relevant documents and about half of the marginal ones. Users also selected a fair number of irrelevant documents for query expansion. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of query expansion is closely related to the searchers' success in retrieving and identifying highly relevant documents for feedback. The implications of the results an interpreting the findings of past experiments with liberal relevance thresholds are also discussed.

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 4710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=4710,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4710, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4710)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes a study whose aim was to analyse theory growth in information science by using a case from information seeking studies. Scientific growth is identified with the growth of theories. Differentiates 3 contexts of theoretical work: unit theories, theoretical research programmes and metatheories. States that for analysis if theory growth, tools based on the current theory of science are needed. Introduces tools for the analysis of theory growth and theory reconstruction and applies them to analysis of a theory on information seeking

0.0010517307 = product of:
  0.006310384 = sum of:
    0.006310384 = weight(_text_:in in 3328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006310384 = score(doc=3328,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 3328, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3328)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This small-scale empirical study focuses an students' anticipated and assessed contribution of references retrieved during the preparation of research proposals. It explores how the expected contribution of types of information before searches differs from the assessed contribution of relevant references found by the types of information. Twenty-two psychology undergraduates searched the PsychINFO database for references at the initial and end stages of a seminar for preparing proposals. Data about their subject knowledge, search goals, and utility assessments were collected using several methods. They were asked to predict and assess the utility of information types provided by relevant references for the proposals. At the beginning of the process, they found fewer general types of information and more specific types of information than they expected. However, the students tended to accept references according to their expectations. By the end of the process, the expected importance of general information types declined and the importance of specific information types increased. At the end of the task, students became more proficient at recognizing the utility and topicality of references. They also became more critical in accepting found information to match their expectations.

0.0010517307 = product of:
  0.006310384 = sum of:
    0.006310384 = weight(_text_:in in 5106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006310384 = score(doc=5106,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 5106, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5106)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The documents retrieved by a web search are useful if the information they contain contributes to some task or information need. To measure search result utility, studies have typically focused on perceived usefulness rather than on actual information use. We investigate the actual usefulness of search results-as indicated by their use as sources in an extensive writing task-and the factors that make a writer successful at retrieving useful sources. Our data comprise 150 essays written by 12 writers whose querying, clicking and writing activities were recorded. By tracking authors' text reuse behavior, we quantify the search results' contribution to the task more accurately than before. We model the overall utility of the search results retrieved throughout the writing process using path analysis, and compare a binary utility model (Reuse Events) to one that quantifies a degree of utility (Reuse Amount). The Reuse Events model has greater explanatory power (63% vs. 48%); in both models, the number of clicks is by far the strongest predictor of useful results-with ß-coefficients up to 0.7-while dwell time has a negative effect (ß between -0.14 and -0.21). As a conclusion, we propose a new measure of search result usefulness based on a source's contribution to an evolving text. Our findings are valid for tasks where text reuse is allowed, but also have implications on designing indicators of search result usefulness for general writing tasks.