Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024753649 = product of:
  0.049507298 = sum of:
    0.049507298 = product of:
      0.099014595 = sum of:
        0.099014595 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099014595 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, 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=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.01502503 = product of:
  0.03005006 = sum of:
    0.03005006 = product of:
      0.06010012 = sum of:
        0.06010012 = weight(_text_:online in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06010012 = score(doc=1919,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As end users perform their own searches, more insight into their searching behaviour is needed. Identifies and describes the strategies, assessments and affective behaviours from the transcripts and keystroke records collected during 3 searches. The affective behaviours exhibited by the searchers show the involvement of other than cognitive activities in this intellectual pursuit. Particularly interesting is the single mindedness of the search strategies. Describes the searchers' online assessments of the usefulness of retrieved records including assessment strategies that were developed

0.011501143 = product of:
  0.023002286 = sum of:
    0.023002286 = product of:
      0.04600457 = sum of:
        0.04600457 = weight(_text_:online in 5229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04600457 = score(doc=5229,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 5229, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Thirty-one patrons, who were selected by Slone to provide a range of age and experience, agreed when approached while using the catalog of the Wake County library system to try searching via the Internet. Fifteen searched the Wake County online catalog in this manner and 16 searched the World Wide Web, including that catalog. They were subjected to brief pre-structured taped interviews before and after their searches and observed during the searching process resulting in a log of behaviors, comments, pages accessed, and time spent. Data were analyzed across participants and categories. Web searches were characterized as linking, URL, search engine, within a site domain, and searching a web catalog; and participants by the number of these techniques used. Four used only one, 13 used two, 11 used three, two used four, and one all five. Participant experience was characterized as never used, used search engines, browsing experience, email experience, URL experience, catalog experience, and finally chat room/newsgroup experience. Sixteen percent of the participants had never used the Internet, 71% had used search engines, 65% had browsed, 58% had used email, 39% had used URLs, 39% had used online catalogs, and 32% had used chat rooms. The catalog was normally consulted before the web, where both were used, and experience with an online catalog assists in web use. Scrolling was found to be unpopular and practiced halfheartedly.

0.009390644 = product of:
  0.018781288 = sum of:
    0.018781288 = product of:
      0.037562575 = sum of:
        0.037562575 = weight(_text_:online in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037562575 = score(doc=2423,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users

0.008840589 = product of:
  0.017681178 = sum of:
    0.017681178 = product of:
      0.035362355 = sum of:
        0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035362355 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:55:52

0.008840589 = product of:
  0.017681178 = sum of:
    0.017681178 = product of:
      0.035362355 = sum of:
        0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035362355 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

0.008840589 = product of:
  0.017681178 = sum of:
    0.017681178 = product of:
      0.035362355 = sum of:
        0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035362355 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25. 1.2016 18:46:22

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 2561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=2561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the fall 2001 semester 15 first-year undergraduates were interviewed about their information-seeking behavior. Undergraduates completed a short-answer questionnaire, the Measure of Epistemological Reflection, measuring their epistemological beliefs and searched the Web and an online public access catalog using tasks from the Reflective Judgment Interview that assessed their reflective judgment level. Undergraduates talked aloud while searching digital environments about the decisions they were making about the information they encountered while transaction analyses software (Lotus ScreenCam) recorded both their search moves and their decision-making through verbal protocol analysis. Analyses included examining the relationship between undergraduates' epistemological beliefs and reflective judgment and how they searched for information in these digital environments. Results indicated that there was a relationship between epistemological beliefs and reflective judgment and information-seeking behavior. Undergraduates' at higher stages of epistemological development exhibited the ability to handle conflicting information sources and to recognize authoritative information sources.

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 2097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=2097,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2097, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2097)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores the effects of undergraduate students' mental models of the Web on their online searching behavior. Forty-four undergraduate students, mainly freshmen and sophomores, participated in the study. Subjects' mental models of the Web were treated as equally good styles and operationalized as drawings of their perceptions about the Web. Four types of mental models of the Web were identified based on the drawings and the associated descriptions: technical view, functional view, process view, and connection view. In the study, subjects were required to finish two search tasks. Searching behavior was measured from four aspects: navigation and performance, subjects' feelings about tasks and their own performances, query construction, and search patterns. The four mental model groups showed different navigation and querying behaviors, but the differences were not significant. Subjects' satisfaction with their own performances was found to be significantly correlated with the time to complete the task. The results also showed that the familiarity of the task to subjects had a major effect on their ways to start interaction, query construction, and search patterns.

0.007072471 = product of:
  0.014144942 = sum of:
    0.014144942 = product of:
      0.028289884 = sum of:
        0.028289884 = weight(_text_:22 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028289884 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:54:13

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 3681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=3681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3681, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We report on a study that was undertaken to better understand search and navigation behavior by exploiting the close association between the process underlying users' query submission and the navigational trails emanating from query clickthroughs. To our knowledge, there has been little research towards bridging the gap between these two important processes pertaining to users' online information searching activity. Based an log data obtained from a search and navigation documentation system called AutoDoc, we propose a model of user search sessions and provide analysis an users' link or clickthrough selection behavior, reformulation activities, and search strategy patterns. We also conducted a simple user study to gauge users' perceptions of their information seeking activity when interacting with the system. The results obtained show that analyzing both the query submissions and navigation starting from query clickthrough, reveals much more interesting patterns than analyzing these two processes independently. On average, AutoDoc users submitted only one query per search session and entered approximately two query terms. Specifically, our results show how AutoDoc users are more inclined to submit new queries or resubmit modified queries than to navigate by linkfollowing. We also show that users' behavior within this search system can be approximated by Zipf's Law distribution.