Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015255922 = product of:
  0.045767765 = sum of:
    0.045767765 = product of:
      0.09153553 = sum of:
        0.09153553 = weight(_text_:methodology in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09153553 = score(doc=949,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.43102458 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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).

0.012456408 = product of:
  0.03736922 = sum of:
    0.03736922 = product of:
      0.07473844 = sum of:
        0.07473844 = weight(_text_:methodology in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07473844 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.35193008 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study analyses contributions to Library and Information Science (LIS) by researchers representing various disciplines. How are such contributions associated with the choice of research topics and methodology? The study employs a quantitative content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 2015. Each article is seen as a contribution to LIS by the authors' disciplines, which are inferred from their affiliations. The unit of analysis is the article-discipline pair. Of the contribution instances, the share of LIS is one third. Computer Science contributes one fifth and Business and Economics one sixth. The latter disciplines dominate the contributions in information retrieval, information seeking, and scientific communication indicating strong influences in LIS. Correspondence analysis reveals three clusters of research, one focusing on traditional LIS with contributions from LIS and Humanities and survey-type research; another on information retrieval with contributions from Computer Science and experimental research; and the third on scientific communication with contributions from Natural Sciences and Medicine and citation analytic research. The strong differentiation of scholarly contributions in LIS hints to the fragmentation of LIS as a discipline.

0.010569612 = product of:
  0.031708833 = sum of:
    0.031708833 = product of:
      0.063417666 = sum of:
        0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063417666 = score(doc=1732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 1732, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper sets out to examine the degree to which General Finnish Thesaurus (GFT) and FinMeSH cover various semantic expressions of medical concepts in patients' questions and physicians' answers concerning cardiovascular diseases. The former represents lay persons' information needs. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 50 question-answer pairs were collected in a medical web site. Concepts and their expressions (terms) with their semantic relations were identified in questions and answers. Findings - FinMeSH covered 65 per cent and GFT 41 per cent of all medical terms in texts. The expressions of patients and physicians matched better with FinMeSH than GFT regardless of the type of expression. The difference in favour of FinMeSH was typically about 25 per cent-units. Originality/value - The low fit with users' vocabularies makes GFT a poor tool for supporting searching, whereas the relatively high fit of FinMeSH suggests that it is a reasonable tool in assisting searching. Conclusions concerning the bridging of these two thesauri are discussed.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate fiction readers' interest criteria when selecting novels in library catalogs for various search tasks. Design/methodology/approach - The data of the book selection behavior from 80 genuine fiction readers were collected using recorded interviews and conversations. The data were qualitatively analyzed. Reuter's categorization of the components of aesthetic relevance has contributed to the construction of interest dimensions. Findings - A five-dimension categorization of interest criteria is presented based on fiction readers' interpretations of the influential factors in fiction book selection in different search tasks. The findings revealed that readers apply the identified interest criteria in a flexible and multiphase way depending to the search task and the system used. The findings showed a context-related pattern in readers' fiction book selections. A combination of readers' search capacities, "behind the eyes" knowledge, affective factors and a well-functioning interaction with a system used results in a successful book selection. Originality/value - A five-dimension categorization of adult fiction readers' interest criteria was created based on their search behaviors in library catalogs. The results provide a systematic step toward a comprehensive understanding of readers' fiction book selection in digital environments.

0.0075274887 = product of:
  0.022582466 = sum of:
    0.022582466 = product of:
      0.04516493 = sum of:
        0.04516493 = weight(_text_:22 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04516493 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article focuses an analysing students' information needs in terms of conceptual understanding of the topic they propose to study and its consequences for the search process and outcome. The research subjects were 22 undergraduates of psychology attending a seminar for preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. They were asked to make searches in the PsycINFO database for their task in the beginning and end of the seminar. A pre- and postsearch interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded, as were the transaction logs. The results show that during the preparation of research proposals different features of the students' conceptual structure were connected to the search success. Students' ability to cover their conceptual construct by query terms was the major feature affecting search success during the whole process. In the beginning also the number of concepts and the proportion of subconcepts in the construct contributed indirectly via search tactics to retrieving partly useful references. Students' ability to extract new query terms from retrieved items improved search results.

Date

19. 6.2003 17:22:33

0.007046408 = product of:
  0.021139223 = sum of:
    0.021139223 = product of:
      0.042278446 = sum of:
        0.042278446 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042278446 = score(doc=1891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this study is to explore to which extent searching by medical students in Medline produces information items useful for writing an essay measured by precision and relative recall as perceived by the students, the proportion of cited items, and their utilization on four dimensions of the essay writing task evaluated by external assessors. It also aims to study interrelations of search process and outcome. Design/methodology/approach - The study subjects were 42 third year medical students attending a class on Diagnostic and therapy. Searching in Medline was a part of their assignment of essay writing. The data consist of students' printed logs of Medline searches, students' assessments of the usefulness of the references retrieved, a questionnaire concerning the search process, and evaluation scores of the essays given by the teachers of the class. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for answering the research questions. Findings - The paper finds that precision and relative recall were not associated with evaluation scores in three of the four dimensions assessed. Some of the process variables were associated with precision and with assessment scores in two of the four dimensions assessed. Citing rate was negatively associated with recall. It seems that precision and recall are only weakly, if at all, associated to the use of information in the documents retrieved for writing the essay. Precision and relative recall are not associated to the way information in the retrieved items is used for performing the task. Users evidently look for a sufficient number of documents containing enough information for progressing in their task. Precision and recall are not sufficient measures in evaluating IR systems, but they have to be completed by other measures indicating the impact of the system on users' task performance. Originality/value - The paper provides useful information on students' information search process.

0.007046408 = product of:
  0.021139223 = sum of:
    0.021139223 = product of:
      0.042278446 = sum of:
        0.042278446 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042278446 = score(doc=1797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 1797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0053227386 = product of:
  0.015968215 = sum of:
    0.015968215 = product of:
      0.03193643 = sum of:
        0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03193643 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1073, 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=1073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study analyses how students' growing understanding of the topic and search experience were related to their choice of search tactics and terms while preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. In addition to that, the findings of the study are used to test Vakkari's (2001) theory of task-based IR. The research subjects were 22 students of psychology attending a seminar for preparing the proposal. They made a search for their task in PsychINFO database at the beginning and end of the seminar. Data were collected in several ways. A pre- and post-search interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded as were the transaction logs. The results show that search experience was slightly related to the change of facets. Although the students' vocabulary of the topic grew generating an increased use of specific terms between the sessions, their use of search tactics and operators remained fairly constant. There was no correlation between the terms and tactics used and the total number of useful references found. By comparing these results with the findings of relevant earlier studies the conclusion was drawn that domain knowledge has an impact on searching assuming that users have a sufficient command of the system used. This implies that the tested theory of task-based IR is valid on condition that the searchers are experienced. It is suggested that the theory should be enriched by including search experience in its scope.

0.0053227386 = product of:
  0.015968215 = sum of:
    0.015968215 = product of:
      0.03193643 = sum of:
        0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03193643 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.0053227386 = product of:
  0.015968215 = sum of:
    0.015968215 = product of:
      0.03193643 = sum of:
        0.03193643 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03193643 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06