Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0045472393 = product of:
  0.027283436 = sum of:
    0.027283436 = product of:
      0.05456687 = sum of:
        0.05456687 = weight(_text_:web in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05456687 = score(doc=1135,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this study, we attempt to evaluate the performance of the World Wide Web as an information resource in the domain of international travel. The theoretical framework underpinning our approach recognizes the contribution of models of information seeking behavior and of information systems in explaining World Wide Web usage as an information resource. Specifically, a model integrating the construct of uncertainty in information seeking and the task-technology fit model is presented. To test the integrated model, 217 travelers participated in a questionnaire-based empirical study. Our results confirm that richer (or enhanced) models are required to evaluate the broad context of World Wide Web (the Web) usage as an information resource. Use of the Web for travel tasks, for uncertainty reduction, as an information resource, and for mediation all have a significant impact an users' perception of performance, explaining 46% of the variance. Additionally, our study contributes to the testing and validation of metrics for use of the Web as an information resource in a specific domain.

0.0024306017 = product of:
  0.01458361 = sum of:
    0.01458361 = product of:
      0.02916722 = sum of:
        0.02916722 = weight(_text_:web in 2106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02916722 = score(doc=2106,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2106, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach to query expansion in search engines through the use of general non-topical terms (NTTs) and domain-specific semi-topical terms (STTs). NTTs and STTs can be used in conjunction with topical terms (TTs) to improve precision in retrieval results. In Phase I, 20 topical queries in two domains (Health and the Social Sciences) were carried out in Google and from the results of the queries, 800 pages were textually analysed. Of 1442 NTTs and STTs identified, 15% were shared between the two domains; 62% were NTTs and 38% were STTs; and approximately 64% occurred before while 36% occurred after their respective topical terms (TTs). Findings of Phase II showed that query expansion through NTTs (or STTs) particularly in the 'exact title' and URL search options resulted in more precise and manageable results. Statistically significant differences were found between Health and the Social Sciences vis-à-vis keyword and 'exact phrase' search results; however there were no significant differences in exact title and URL search results. The ratio of exact phrase, exact title, and URL search result frequencies to keyword search result frequencies also showed statistically significant differences between the two domains. Our findings suggest that web searching could be greatly enhanced combining NTTs (and STTs) with TTs in an initial query. Additionally, search results would improve if queries are restricted to the exact title or URL search options. Finally, we suggest the development and implementation of knowledge-based lists of NTTs (and STTs) by both general and specialized search engines to aid query expansion.

0.001718695 = product of:
  0.01031217 = sum of:
    0.01031217 = product of:
      0.02062434 = sum of:
        0.02062434 = weight(_text_:web in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02062434 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.