Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025847128 = product of:
  0.18092988 = sum of:
    0.15738651 = weight(_text_:mental in 625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15738651 = score(doc=625,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.957446 = fieldWeight in 625, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=625)
    0.023543375 = weight(_text_:representation in 625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023543375 = score(doc=625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=625)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The article reports a field study which examined the mental models of 80 undergraduates seeking information for either a history or psychology course essay when they were in an early, exploration stage of researching their essay. This group is presently at a disadvantage when using thesaurus-type schemes in indexes and online search engines because there is a disconnect between how domain novice users of IR systems represent a topic space and how this space is represented in the standard IR system thesaurus. The study attempted to (a) ascertain the coding language used by the 80 undergraduates in the study to mentally represent their topic and then (b) align the mental models with the hierarchical structure found in many thesauri. The intervention focused the undergraduates' thinking about their topic from a topic statement to a thesis statement. The undergraduates were asked to produce three mental model diagrams for their real-life course essay at the beginning, middle, and end of the interview, for a total of 240 mental model diagrams, from which we created a 12-category mental model classification scheme. Findings indicate that at the end of the intervention, (a) the percentage of vertical mental models increased from 24 to 35% of all mental models; but that (b) 3rd-year students had fewer vertical mental models than did 1st-year undergraduates in the study, which is counterintuitive. The results indicate that there is justification for pursuing our research based on the hypothesis that rotating a domain novice's mental model into a vertical position would make it easier for him or her to cognitively connect with the thesaurus's hierarchical representation of the topic area.

0.008302689 = product of:
  0.11623763 = sum of:
    0.11623763 = weight(_text_:mental in 280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11623763 = score(doc=280,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.70712066 = fieldWeight in 280, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=280)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

More complex contexts of information seeking require extensive thinking that involves an intellectual leap which carries the user `beyond the information given' (Bruner, 1973) to the construction of something `new'. According to Arnheim (1969) such thinking is directly affected by one's visual perception of the world and he argues that the most productive thinking results from this imagery. The application of visual or mental imagery to the relationships and structure in information seeking situations may be thought of as a constructive strategy for making meaning. This paper explores the use of mental imagery in the constructive process of information seeking. For the individual, the meaning of information is not inherent in the information itself but in his or her perception of it and how it fits into an image of the world or personal construct system (Boulding, 1961; Kelly, 1963). The use of imagery may facilitate a user's mental image of information and its relation to previously acquired knowledge and, thus, also facilitate new construction during the information seeking process. Mental imagery has been found to play an important role in creativity and problem solving. Shepard (1978) argues that some of the most creative thoughts and solutions which humans devise are those which are not confined to expression within linear verbal communication but rather spring from mental imagery that embraces a spatial approach to problem solving. Mental imagery is more concrete and visually constructive in nature than verbal methods of problem solving. This paper explores the role of imagery in the constructive tasks of problem solving and learning in the information seeking process.

0.008267534 = product of:
  0.11574547 = sum of:
    0.11574547 = weight(_text_:phenomenology in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11574547 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20961581 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.329592 = idf(docFreq=28, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.5521791 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.329592 = idf(docFreq=28, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This study focuses on the ways in which people define their source preferences in the context of seeking orienting information for nonwork purposes. The conceptual framework of the study combines ideas drawn from social phenomenology and information-seeking studies. The study utilizes Alfred Schutz's model describing the ways in which actors structure everyday knowledge into regions of decreasing relevance. It is assumed that this structuring based on the actor's interest at hand is also reflected in the ways in which an actor prefers information sources and channels. The concept of information source horizon is used to elicit articulations of source preferences. The empirical part of the study draws on interviews with 20 individuals active in environmental issues. Printed media (newspapers), the Internet, and broadcast media (radio, television) were preferred in seeking for orienting information. The major source preferences were content of information, and availability and accessibility. Usability of information sources, user characteristics such as media habits, and situational factors were mentioned less frequently as preference criteria.

0.005931727 = product of:
  0.08304418 = sum of:
    0.08304418 = weight(_text_:mental in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08304418 = score(doc=2070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.50519145 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Examines some of the theories that have evolved to explain the mental processes required for the use of information systems. Categorizes research in this area into system oriented and user oriented studies and reviews this research. Describes a sample of methodologies used for examining users and their information seeking behaviour. Concludes with a discussion of the implications of these theories and methods for librarians and information specialists

0.004236948 = product of:
  0.059317272 = sum of:
    0.059317272 = weight(_text_:mental in 3319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059317272 = score(doc=3319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.36085102 = fieldWeight in 3319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3319)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

No prior research has been identified that investigates the causal factors for workplace exploratory search task performance. The impact of user, task, and environmental factors on user satisfaction and task performance was investigated through a mixed methods study with 26 experienced information professionals using enterprise search in an oil and gas enterprise. Some participants found 75% of high-value items, others found none, with an average of 27%. No association was found between self-reported search expertise and task performance, with a tendency for many participants to overestimate their search expertise. Successful searchers may have more accurate mental models of both search systems and the information space. Organizations may not have effective exploratory search task performance feedback loops, a lack of learning. This may be caused by management bias towards technology, not capability, a lack of systems thinking. Furthermore, organizations may not "know" they "don't know" their true level of search expertise, a lack of knowing. A metamodel is presented identifying the causal factors for workplace exploratory search task performance. Semistructured qualitative interviews with search staff from the defense, pharmaceutical, and aerospace sectors indicates the potential transferability of the finding that organizations may not know their search expertise levels.

0.0011365123 = product of:
  0.015911171 = sum of:
    0.015911171 = product of:
      0.04773351 = sum of:
        0.04773351 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04773351 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

9.7415334E-4 = product of:
  0.013638146 = sum of:
    0.013638146 = product of:
      0.04091444 = sum of:
        0.04091444 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04091444 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

5.734144E-4 = product of:
  0.008027801 = sum of:
    0.008027801 = product of:
      0.024083402 = sum of:
        0.024083402 = weight(_text_:29 in 6004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024083402 = score(doc=6004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6004)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

2.10.2006 13:29:01

4.8707667E-4 = product of:
  0.006819073 = sum of:
    0.006819073 = product of:
      0.02045722 = sum of:
        0.02045722 = weight(_text_:22 in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02045722 = score(doc=2747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2747, 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=2747)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:54:15

4.0958173E-4 = product of:
  0.005734144 = sum of:
    0.005734144 = product of:
      0.017202431 = sum of:
        0.017202431 = weight(_text_:29 in 2388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017202431 = score(doc=2388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

3. 7.2004 15:28:29

3.247178E-4 = product of:
  0.004546049 = sum of:
    0.004546049 = product of:
      0.013638147 = sum of:
        0.013638147 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013638147 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 3.2002 8:51:28