Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012802432 = product of:
  0.07681459 = sum of:
    0.07681459 = weight(_text_:web in 3433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07681459 = score(doc=3433,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 3433, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3433)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Despite the development of huge healthcare Web sites and powerful search engines, many searchers end their searches prematurely with incomplete information. Recent studies suggest that users often retrieve incomplete information because of the complex scatter of relevant facts about a topic across Web pages. However, little is understood about regularities underlying such information scatter. To probe regularities within the scatter of facts across Web pages, this article presents the results of two analyses: (a) a cluster analysis of Web pages that reveals the existence of three page clusters that vary in information density and (b) a content analysis that suggests the role each of the above-mentioned page clusters play in providing comprehensive information. These results provide implications for the design of Web sites, search tools, and training to help users find comprehensive information about a topic and for a hypothesis describing the underlying mechanisms causing the scatter. We conclude by briefly discussing how the analysis of information scatter, at the granularity of facts, complements existing theories of information-seeking behavior.

0.006871327 = product of:
  0.04122796 = sum of:
    0.04122796 = product of:
      0.08245592 = sum of:
        0.08245592 = weight(_text_:programs in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08245592 = score(doc=3437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.32024145 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site's policy of assuring verifiability through citations. It does so by examining the references and citations of a subset of country histories. The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used. Many of these are from only a few US government Websites or news media and few are to academic journal material. Given these results, one response would be to declare Wikipedia unsuitable for serious reference work. But another option emerges when we jettison technological determinism and look at Wikipedia as a product of a wider social context. Key to this context is a world in which information is bottled up as commodities requiring payment for access. Equally important is the problematic assumption that texts are undifferentiated bearers of knowledge. Those involved in instructional programs can draw attention to the social nature of texts to counter these assumptions and by so doing create an awareness for a new generation of Wikipedians and Wikipedia users of the need to evaluate texts (and hence citations) in light of the social context of their production and use.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=369,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 369, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=369)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study analyzes the search behavior of Dutch-speaking nursing students with a nonnative knowledge of English who searched for information in MEDLINE/PubMed about a specific theme in nursing. We examine whether and to what extent their search efficiency is affected by their language skills. Our task-oriented approach focuses on three stages of the information retrieval process: need articulation, query formulation, and relevance judgment. The test participants completed a pretest questionnaire, which gave us information about their overall experience with the search system and their self-reported computer and language skills. The students were briefly introduced to the use of PubMed and MeSH (medical subject headings) before they conducted their keyword-driven subject search. We assessed the search results in terms of recall and precision, and also analyzed the search process. After the search task, a satisfaction survey and a language test were completed. We conclude that language skills have an impact on the search results. We hypothesize that language support might improve the efficiency of searches conducted by Dutch-speaking users of PubMed.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 5093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=5093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5093, 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=5093)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Controversy is a complex concept that has been attracting attention of scholars from diverse fields. In the era of Internet and social media, detecting controversy and controversial concepts by the means of automatic methods is especially important. Web searchers could be alerted when the contents they consume are controversial or when they attempt to acquire information on disputed topics. Presenting users with the indications and explanations of the controversy should offer them chance to see the "wider picture" rather than letting them obtain one-sided views. In this work we first introduce a formal model of controversy as the basis of computational approaches to detecting controversial concepts. Then we propose a classification based method for automatic detection of controversial articles and categories in Wikipedia. Next, we demonstrate how to use the obtained results for the estimation of the controversy level of search queries. The proposed method can be incorporated into search engines as a component responsible for detection of queries related to controversial topics. The method is independent of the search engine's retrieval and search results recommendation algorithms, and is therefore unaffected by a possible filter bubble. Our approach can be also applied in Wikipedia or other knowledge bases for supporting the detection of controversy and content maintenance. Finally, we believe that our results could be useful for social science researchers for understanding the complex nature of controversy and in fostering their studies.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=5471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5471, 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=5471)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases. Design/methodology/approach A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the "Cited Reference Search" in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category. Findings In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry. Originality/value The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, 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=3460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22