Search (99 results, page 1 of 5)

0.039477065 = product of:
  0.07895413 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=4989,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4989, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4989)
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 4989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=4989,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 4989, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4989)
    0.02231347 = weight(_text_:of in 4989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231347 = score(doc=4989,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4989, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4989)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 4989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=4989,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4989, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4989)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Understanding search behavior is important and leads to more effective interfaces that support searchers throughout the search process. In this article, through an observational user study, we investigate the search behavior of 15 visually impaired and 15 sighted searchers while they complete complex search tasks online. We study complex search tasks because they are challenging, cognitively intensive and affect performance of searchers. We compare the behavior of the two groups of searchers at four stages of the information-seeking process namely, Query Formulation, Search Results Exploration, Query Reformulation, and Search Results Management. For each stage, we identify research questions to investigate the impact of speech-based screen readers on the information-seeking behavior of visually impaired users. Significant differences were observed during query formulation and in the use of query-level support features such as query suggestions and spelling suggestions. In addition, screen-reader users submitted a lower number of queries and displayed comparatively limited exploratory behavior during search results exploration. We investigate how a lack of visual cues affected visually impaired searchers' approach towards query reformulation and observed different strategies to manage and use information encountered during the search process. We discuss the implications that our findings have for the design of search interfaces and propose a set of design guidelines to consider when designing interfaces that are usable and accessible with screen readers. This work also enhances our understanding of search behavior when using an auditory interface and could be useful when designing audio-based information retrieval systems.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.377-391

0.036471 = product of:
  0.072942 = sum of:
    0.023615643 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023615643 = score(doc=4992,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01711173 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.021402327 = weight(_text_:of in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021402327 = score(doc=4992,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33143494 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.010812307 = product of:
      0.021624614 = sum of:
        0.021624614 = weight(_text_:on in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021624614 = score(doc=4992,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23809364 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The field of human information behavior runs the gamut of processes from the realization of a need or gap in understanding, to the search for information from one or more sources to fill that gap, to the use of that information to complete a task at hand or to satisfy a curiosity, as well as other behaviors such as avoiding information or finding information serendipitously. Designers of mechanisms, tools, and computer-based systems to facilitate this seeking and search process often lack a full knowledge of the context surrounding the search. This context may vary depending on the job or role of the person; individual characteristics such as personality, domain knowledge, age, gender, perception of self, etc.; the task at hand; the source and the channel and their degree of accessibility and usability; and the relationship that the seeker shares with the source. Yet researchers have yet to agree on what context really means. While there have been various research studies incorporating context, and biennial conferences on context in information behavior, there lacks a clear definition of what context is, what its boundaries are, and what elements and variables comprise context. In this book, we look at the many definitions of and the theoretical and empirical studies on context, and I attempt to map the conceptual space of context in information behavior. I propose theoretical frameworks to map the boundaries, elements, and variables of context. I then discuss how to incorporate these frameworks and variables in the design of research studies on context. We then arrive at a unified definition of context. This book should provide designers of search systems a better understanding of context as they seek to meet the needs and demands of information seekers. It will be an important resource for researchers in Library and Information Science, especially doctoral students looking for one resource that covers an exhaustive range of the most current literature related to context, the best selection of classics, and a synthesis of these into theoretical frameworks and a unified definition. The book should help to move forward research in the field by clarifying the elements, variables, and views that are pertinent. In particular, the list of elements to be considered, and the variables associated with each element will be extremely useful to researchers wanting to include the influences of context in their studies.

Series

Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 61

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.032789953 = product of:
  0.08743988 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=1130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
    0.037047986 = weight(_text_:use in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037047986 = score(doc=1130,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29299045 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
    0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 1130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02087234 = score(doc=1130,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 1130, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1130)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

There is increasing interest in topics at the nexus of collaboration and information behavior. A variety of studies conducted in organizational settings have provided us with key insights about the collaborative aspects of seeking, retrieving, and using information. Researchers have used a range of terms, including collaborative information seeking (CIS), collaborative information retrieval (CIR), collaborative search, collaborative sensemaking, and others to describe various pertinent activities. Consequently, we lack conceptual clarity concerning these activities, leading to a tendency to use terms interchangeably when in fact they may be referring to different issues. Here, we offer collaborative information behavior (CIB) as an umbrella term to connote the collaborative aspects of information seeking, retrieval, and use. We provide the contours of a model of CIB synthesized from findings of past studies conducted by our research team as well as other researchers. By reanalyzing and synthesizing the data from those studies, we conceptualize CIB as comprised of a set of constitutive activities, organized into three broad phases-problem formulation, collaborative information seeking, and information use. Some of the activities are specific to a particular phase, whereas others are common to all phases. We explain how those constitutive activities are related to one another. Finally, we discuss the limitations of our model as well as its potential usefulness in advancing CIB research.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.12, S.2437-2451

0.031603947 = product of:
  0.063207895 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 3404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3404)
    0.02231347 = weight(_text_:of in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231347 = score(doc=3404,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 3404, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3404)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 3404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=3404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3404, 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=3404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

The present essay is based on research funded by the German Ministry of Economics and Technology and carried out by the Munich School of Philosophy (Prof. Godehard Brüntrup) in cooperation with the IT company Comelio GmbH. It is concerned with setting up the philosophical framework for a systematic, hierarchical and categorical account of questions and answers in order to use this framework as an ontology for software engineers who create a tool for intelligent questionnaire design. In recent years, there has been considerable interest in programming software that enables users to create and carry out their own surveys. Considering the, to say the least, vast amount of areas of applications these software tools try to cover, it is surprising that most of the existing tools lack a systematic approach to what questions and answers really are and in what kind of systematic hierarchical relations different types of questions stand to each other. The theoretical background to this essay is inspired Barry Smith's theory of regional ontologies. The notion of ontology used in this essay can be defined by the following characteristics: (1) The basic notions of the ontology should be defined in a manner that excludes equivocations of any kind. They should also be presented in a way that allows for an easy translation into a semi-formal language, in order to secure easy applicability for software engineers. (2) The hierarchical structure of the ontology should be that of an arbor porphyriana.

Date

9. 2.2017 19:22:59

Series

History and philosophy of technoscience; 3

0.030763194 = product of:
  0.082035184 = sum of:
    0.05659173 = weight(_text_:use in 1640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05659173 = score(doc=1640,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.44755027 = fieldWeight in 1640, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1640)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 1640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=1640,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1640, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1640)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 1640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=1640,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1640, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

According to Leventhal's Common Sense Model of illness regulation, people approach and deal with their illnesses differently depending on their cognitive representations of them. Thus, understanding people's illness representations can be invaluable when assisting them to develop lifestyle modifications that improve their health. What role does information use play in this equation? This is the crucial question addressed by this two-part study. Part 1 hypothesizes a model of how information use at different timepoints may affect illness representations, and then tests this model. The study found that a number of information use type and time pairings (e.g., information used to consult healthcare practitioners at symptom onset) were significantly associated with present-day level of personal control. The results suggest that it is not merely type or timing of information use alone that is helpful in illness coping, but the coupling of the two; this has several implications for the design of patient education programs. Part 2 examines how information use and illness representations differ based on the way an individual participates in online health forums and social media sites. The following four different participation styles were investigated: nonuser, only reading ("lurker"), posting occasionally but largely reading ("infrequent poster"), and reading and posting ("poster"). Differences in both information use and illness perceptions were found, and the implications of these are discussed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.340-353

0.027727902 = product of:
  0.073941074 = sum of:
    0.04277933 = weight(_text_:use in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04277933 = score(doc=1789,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3383162 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=1789,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=1789,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the conceptual picture of the relationships between the affective and cognitive factors in information seeking and use. Design/methodology/approach - Conceptual analysis focusing on the ways in which the affective and cognitive factors and their interplay are approached in the Information Search Process model developed by Carol Kuhlthau, and the Social-Biological Information Technology model elaborated by Diane Nahl. Findings - Kuhlthau's model approaches the cognitive factors (thoughts) and affective factors (feelings) and affective-cognitive factors (mood) as integral constituents of the six-stage information search process. Thoughts determine the valence of feelings (positive or negative), while mood opens or closes the range of possibilities in a search. Nahl's taxonomic model defines the affective and cognitive factors as components of a biologically determined process serving the ends of adaptation to information ecology. The interplay of the above factors is conceptualized by focusing on their mutual roles in the cognitive and affective appraisal of information. Research limitations/implications - The findings are based on the comparison of two models only. Originality/value - So far, information scientists have largely ignored the study of the interplay between affective and cognitive factors in information seeking and use. The findings indicate that the examination of these factors together rather than separately holds a good potential to elaborate the holistic picture of information seeking and use.

Source

Journal of documentation. 71(2015) no.1, S.175-197

0.027635084 = product of:
  0.07369356 = sum of:
    0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036299463 = score(doc=4231,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
    0.02592591 = weight(_text_:of in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02592591 = score(doc=4231,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=4231,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Adopting an intradisciplinary perspective, this article evaluates the information-seeking behavior of academics from different subfields of physics and astronomy. It investigates the effect of interdisciplinarity (reliance on the literature of other subjects) and the scatter of literature on two aspects of the information-seeking behavior: methods used for keeping up-to-date and for identifying articles. To this end a survey of 114 PhD students and staff at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University College London was carried out. The findings showed that the subfields that are more interdisciplinary or have a more scattered literature are more likely to use general search facilities for finding information. The study also showed that cross-disciplinary use of the literature is not necessarily an indicator of scattered literature. The study reveals intradisciplinary differences among physicists and astronomers in terms of their information-seeking behavior and highlights the risk of overlooking the characteristics of information-seeking behavior of specialized subject communities by focusing on very broad subject categories.

0.026548041 = product of:
  0.070794776 = sum of:
    0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 4954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036299463 = score(doc=4954,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 4954, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4954)
    0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 4954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017710768 = score(doc=4954,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 4954, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4954)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 4954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=4954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

With the use of machine learning and other advances, modern information search systems make it easy for searchers to access information to meet their most frequent information needs. Building from Kuhlthau's concepts of exploration and differentiating, this article argues that along with the benefits of greater accessibility, these advances impede the development of information literacy, conceptualized as processes for planning, accessing, judging and communicating information. It is argued that information literacy emerges during interaction with search systems and modern system designs hide or render unworkable the contextual information needed for the judgment processes of information literacy. In response to these concerns, the article contributes desiderata for new designs that facilitate the discovery, navigation and use of context information.

Date

16. 3.2019 14:33:22

0.02609499 = product of:
  0.10437996 = sum of:
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=4244,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
    0.082775034 = sum of:
      0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0110352645 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
      0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07173977 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose The current understanding of serendipity is based primarily on studies employing westerners as the participants, and it remains uncertain whether or not this understanding would be pervasive under different cultures, such as in China. In addition, there is not a sufficient systematic investigation of context during the occurrence of serendipity in current studies. The purpose of this paper is to examine the above issues by conducting a follow-up empirical study with a group of Chinese scholars. Design/methodology/approach The social media application "WeChat" was employed as a research tool. A diary-based study was conducted and 16 participants were required to send to the researchers any cases of serendipity they encountered during a period of two weeks, and this was followed by a post-interview. Findings Chinese scholars experienced serendipity in line with the three main processes of: encountering unexpectedness, connection-making and recognising the value. An updated context-based serendipity model was constructed, where the role of context during each episode of experiencing serendipity was identified, including the external context (e.g. time, location and status), the social context and the internal context (e.g. precipitating conditions, sagacity/perceptiveness and emotion). Originality/value The updated context model provides a further understanding of the role played by context during the different processes of serendipity. The framework for experiencing serendipity has been expanded, and this may be used to classify the categories of serendipity.

Source

Journal of documentation. 74(2018) no.3, S.526-551

0.025851024 = product of:
  0.068936065 = sum of:
    0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 3955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036299463 = score(doc=3955,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 3955, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3955)
    0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 3955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021168415 = score(doc=3955,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 3955, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3955)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 3955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=3955,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3955, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3955)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to discuss conditions for an effective application of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the pursuit of sustainability for cities. Design/methodology/approach - After a brief overview of the possible contribution of ICT, the main findings of the CIBER study of the Google generation are summarised. The limitations and main focus on advanced countries in the present understanding of internet use are stressed. The current state of internet use in Mexico is summarised. Findings - The need for proactive global policies aimed at reducing imbalances between regions and income groups on the one hand and developing and supporting an information culture on the other hand is emphasised. Originality/value - The paper puts the "Google generation" and technopush discourses into perspective.

0.025796067 = product of:
  0.06878951 = sum of:
    0.044457585 = weight(_text_:use in 519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044457585 = score(doc=519,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35158852 = fieldWeight in 519, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=519)
    0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017710768 = score(doc=519,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 519, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=519)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=519,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 519, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=519)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The overall goal of this study is to explain how information literacy instruction (ILI) influences the adoption of online library resources (OLR) by business students. A theoretical model was developed that integrates research on ILI outcomes and technology adoption. To test this model, a web-based survey, which included both closed and open-ended questions, was administered to 337 business students. Findings indicate that the ILI received by students is beneficial in the initial or early stages of OLR use; however, students quickly reach a saturation point where more instruction contributes little, if anything, to the final outcome, such as reduced OLR anxiety and increased OLR self-efficacy. Rather, it is the independent, continuous use of OLR after receiving initial, formal ILI that creates continued positive effects. Importantly, OLR self-efficacy and anxiety were found to be important antecedents to OLR adoption. OLR anxiety also partially mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived ease of use. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2503-2520

0.024306882 = product of:
  0.06481835 = sum of:
    0.037047986 = weight(_text_:use in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037047986 = score(doc=3979,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29299045 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=3979,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=3979,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Architectural design projects are heavily reliant on electronic information seeking. However, there have been few studies on how architects look for and use information on the Web. We examined the electronic information behavior of 9 postgraduate architectural design and urban design students. We observed them undertake a self-chosen, naturalistic information task related to one of their design projects and found that although the architectural students performed many similar interactive information behaviors to academics and practitioners in other disciplines, they also performed behaviors reflective of the nature of their domain. The included exploring and encountering information (in addition to searching and browsing for it) and visualizing/appropriating information. The observations also highlighted the importance of information use behaviors (such as editing and recording) and communication behaviors (such as sharing and distributing) as well as the importance of multimedia materials, particularly images, for architectural design projects. A key overarching theme was that inspiration was found to be both an important driver for and potential outcome of information work in the architecture domain, suggesting the need to design electronic information tools for architects that encourage and foster creativity. We make suggestions for the design of such tools based on our findings.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1745-1770

0.023833131 = product of:
  0.06355502 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=3419,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3419, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3419)
    0.023000197 = weight(_text_:of in 3419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023000197 = score(doc=3419,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 3419, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3419)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 3419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=3419,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 3419, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Granularity is a novel concept for presenting information in search result interfaces of hierarchical query-driven information retrieval systems in a manner that can support understanding and exploration of the context of the retrieved information (e.g., by highlighting its position in the granular hierarchy and exposing its relationship with relatives in the hierarchy). Little research, however, has been conducted on the effects of granularity of search results on the relevance judgment behavior of engineers. Engineers are highly motivated information users who are particularly interested in understanding the context of the retrieved information. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the design of systems with careful regard for granularity would improve engineers' relevance judgment behavior. To test this hypothesis, a prototype system was developed and evaluated in terms of the time needed for users to find relevant information, the accuracy of their relevance judgment, and their subjective satisfaction. To evaluate the prototype, a user study was conducted where participants were asked to complete tasks, complete a satisfaction questionnaire, and be interviewed. The findings showed that participants performed better and were more satisfied when the prototype system presented only relevant information in context. Although this study presents some novel findings about the effects of granularity and context on user relevance judgment behavior, the results should be interpreted with caution. For example, participants in this research were recruited by convenience and performed a set of simulated tasks as opposed to real ones. However, suggestions for further research are presented.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.453-467

0.023719013 = product of:
  0.0632507 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=3803,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=3803,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
    0.012337802 = product of:
      0.024675604 = sum of:
        0.024675604 = weight(_text_:on in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024675604 = score(doc=3803,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.271686 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The 4th edition of this popular and well-cited text is now co-authored, and includes significant changes from earlier texts. Presenting a comprehensive review of over a century of research on information behavior (IB), this book is intended for students in information studies and disciplines interested in research on information activities. The initial two chapters introduce IB as a multi-disciplinary topic, the 3rd provides a brief history of research on information seeking. Chapter four discusses what is meant by the terms "information" and "knowledge. "Chapter five discusses "information needs," and how they are addressed. The 6th chapter identifies many related concepts. Twelve models of information behavior (expanded from earlier editions) are illustrated in chapter seven. Chapter eight reviews various paradigms and theories informing IB research. Chapter nine examines research methods invoked in IB studies and a discussion of qualitative and mixed approaches. The 10th chapter gives examples of IB studies by context. The final chapter looks at strengths and weaknesses, recent trends, and future development.

RSWK

Information Retrieval

Subject

Information Retrieval

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.022684542 = product of:
  0.060492113 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=3916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3916)
    0.022201622 = weight(_text_:of in 3916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022201622 = score(doc=3916,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 3916, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3916)
    0.013242318 = product of:
      0.026484637 = sum of:
        0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 3916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026484637 = score(doc=3916,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 3916, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This article describes an approach based on structuration theory (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Orlikowski, 1992, 2000) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) that can be used to guide investigation into the dynamics of online question and answer (Q&A) communities. This approach is useful because most research on Q&A sites has focused attention on information retrieval, information-seeking behavior, and information intermediation and has assumed uncritically that the online Q&A community plays an important role in these domains of study. Assuming instead that research on online communities should take into account social, technical, and contextual factors (Kling, Rosenbaum, & Sawyer, 2005), the utility of this approach is demonstrated with an analysis of three online Q&A communities seen as communities of practice. This article makes a theoretical contribution to the study of online Q&A communities and, more generally, to the domain of social reference.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1933-1944

0.021483717 = product of:
  0.057289913 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=1822,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1822, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1822)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 1822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=1822,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 1822, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1822)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 1822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=1822,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1822, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1822)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

User domain knowledge affects search behaviors and search success. Predicting a user's knowledge level from implicit evidence such as search behaviors could allow an adaptive information retrieval system to better personalize its interaction with users. This study examines whether user domain knowledge can be predicted from search behaviors by applying a regression modeling analysis method. We identify behavioral features that contribute most to a successful prediction model. A user experiment was conducted with 40 participants searching on task topics in the domain of genomics. Participant domain knowledge level was assessed based on the users' familiarity with and expertise in the search topics and their knowledge of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms in the categories that corresponded to the search topics. Users' search behaviors were captured by logging software, which includes querying behaviors, document selection behaviors, and general task interaction behaviors. Multiple regression analysis was run on the behavioral data using different variable selection methods. Four successful predictive models were identified, each involving a slightly different set of behavioral variables. The models were compared for the best on model fit, significance of the model, and contributions of individual predictors in each model. Each model was validated using the split sampling method. The final model highlights three behavioral variables as domain knowledge level predictors: the number of documents saved, the average query length, and the average ranking position of the documents opened. The results are discussed, study limitations are addressed, and future research directions are suggested.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.980-1000

0.02102501 = product of:
  0.056066692 = sum of:
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 5067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=5067,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 5067, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5067)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 5067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=5067,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5067, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.031528484 = product of:
      0.06305697 = sum of:
        0.06305697 = weight(_text_:computers in 5067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06305697 = score(doc=5067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29044062 = fieldWeight in 5067, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This is a case study on information literacy (IL) practices in university libraries in Nigeria, the UK and the US. An online questionnaire was used for data collection. University libraries in the UK and US provide IL training in all the areas mentioned compared to university libraries in Nigeria. There are differences between university libraries in UK, US and Nigeria in IL training delivery methods. However, barriers such as lack of facilities, lack of understanding of IL, students' nonchalant attitude towards attending IL sessions, and low acceptance of the online approach were identified as factors militating against librarians' efforts when advocating and providing IL training in the university libraries in Nigeria, while barriers such as lack of time allotted for teaching IL skills, students tendency to be apathetic and bored, and a lack of understanding of what IL is were mentioned by the libraries studied in the UK and US. To have effective IL training programmes, university authorities in developing countries should see the need to provide the necessary facilities such as computers with stable Internet access in university libraries, regular power supplies, and training of librarians on IT. Most of all, librarians should collaborate with other stakeholders in their institutions to ensure an IL policy formulation and implementation in their institutions.

0.020571813 = product of:
  0.05485817 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=2691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
    0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023188837 = score(doc=2691,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=2691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

We report a naturalistic interactive information retrieval (IIR) study of 18 ordinary users in the age of 20-25 who carry out everyday-life information seeking (ELIS) on the Internet with respect to the three types of information needs identified by Ingwersen (1986): the verificative information need (VIN), the conscious topical information need (CIN), and the muddled topical information need (MIN). The searches took place in the private homes of the users in order to ensure as realistic searching as possible. Ingwersen (1996) associates a given search behaviour to each of the three types of information needs, which are analytically deduced, but not yet empirically tested. Thus the objective of the study is to investigate whether empirical data does, or does not, conform to the predictions derived from the three types of information needs. The main conclusion is that the analytically deduced information search behaviour characteristics by Ingwersen are positively corroborated for this group of test participants who search the Internet as part of ELIS.

0.020526899 = product of:
  0.0547384 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 4174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=4174,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 4174, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4174)
    0.02231347 = weight(_text_:of in 4174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231347 = score(doc=4174,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4174, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4174)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 4174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=4174,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4174, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4174)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper seeks to draw on Sice's systems model, itself based on Senge's "fixes that fail" archetype, and on data from two previous research projects conducted by one of the authors. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise a new model that portrays the information-seeking behaviour of children and young people. Design/methodology/approach - The systems model provides the backbone of the new framework but additions, accommodations and revisions were made to ensure that the version featured here represents the phenomenon of information seeking by the young as appropriately as possible in terms of the data that were gathered. Findings - One of the new model's most significant characteristics is its emphasis on problems and issues that prevent information seeking from proceeding smoothly. Information seeking is also shown to be an iterative process, with the individual often revisiting previous stages, frequently in response to difficulties. Research limitations/implications - Data were collected from pupils in just seven schools. The undertaking of research further a-field would be invaluable, if the extent to which the model is applicable to other information-seekers in different environments is to be ascertained. Practical implications - The model demonstrates the importance of the information professional's educative role, in terms of both delivering formal information literacy instruction and providing assistance at the point of need. Originality/value - Although the use of ideas and frameworks from other disciplines, with the aim of increasing understanding of phenomena within LIS, is a growing trend, this paper represents one of the first attempts to apply an existing model associated with systems thinking to information behaviour.

0.020462004 = product of:
  0.054565344 = sum of:
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 1724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=1724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 1724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1724)
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 1724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=1724,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1724, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1724)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 1724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=1724,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1724, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Many discussions exist regarding the credibility of information on the Internet. Similar discussions happen on the interpretation of social scientific research data, for which information triangulation has been proposed as a useful method. In this article, we explore a design theory-consisting of a kernel theory, meta-requirements, and meta-designs-for software and services that triangulate Internet information. The kernel theory identifies 5 triangulation methods based on Churchman's inquiring systems theory and related meta-requirements. These meta-requirements are used to search for existing software and services that contain design features for Internet information triangulation tools. We discuss a prototyping study of the use of an information triangulator among 72 college students and how their use contributes to their opinion formation. From these findings, we conclude that triangulation tools can contribute to opinion formation by information consumers, especially when the tool is not a mere fact checker but includes the search and delivery of alternative views. Finally, we discuss other empirical propositions and design propositions for an agenda for triangulator developers and researchers. In particular, we propose investment in theory triangulation, that is, tools to automatically detect ethically and theoretically alternative information and views.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.4, S.684-701