Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015737344 = product of:
  0.031474687 = sum of:
    0.031474687 = product of:
      0.12589875 = sum of:
        0.12589875 = weight(_text_:author's in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12589875 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.009914805 = product of:
  0.01982961 = sum of:
    0.01982961 = product of:
      0.03965922 = sum of:
        0.03965922 = weight(_text_:i in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03965922 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

0.008546595 = product of:
  0.01709319 = sum of:
    0.01709319 = product of:
      0.03418638 = sum of:
        0.03418638 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03418638 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06