Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.015055796 = product of:
  0.045167387 = sum of:
    0.035707176 = weight(_text_:searching in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035707176 = score(doc=2963,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.2528307 = fieldWeight in 2963, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2963)
    0.009460213 = product of:
      0.018920425 = sum of:
        0.018920425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018920425 = score(doc=2963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2963, 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=2963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - Uncovering faculty members' conceptions of Information Literacy (IL), as well as exploring their perceptions with regard to the importance given to a previously defined set of core IL competences grouped into four categories: searching, evaluation, processing and communication and dissemination. Ascertaining the possible differences among the five knowledge branches (arts and humanities, sciences, social and legal sciences, health sciences, and technical disciplines); and understanding the importance granted to a set of learning improvement initiatives by the faculty. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The survey was completed by a set of faculty members from the University of Granada (Spain). Data were collected using the IL-HUMASS survey. The research is based on subjective data, first approached from a descriptive point of view. Later, data correlation, analysis and non-parametric tests were used with the goal of finding significant differences of faculty perceptions among the relevant academic areas. Findings - Results suggest that more than half of the surveyed faculty have what the authors define as an Academic Concept of IL. The IL categories of communica\tion and dissemination and searching were graded in significance by the staff as being "very important," while those of evaluation and processing were assigned a slightly lesser rating of "important." Results suggest that IL awareness falls into two broad groups differentiated by subject discipline: those from health sciences, social and legal sciences and arts and humanities representing the first group, and sciences and technical disciplines the other. Research limitations/implications - This approach address the subjective status of faculty concepts in a single university, but also in all knowledge branches. Future research is needed. Originality/value - This is one of the few papers regarding faculty perceptions of IL.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.014114501 = product of:
  0.084687 = sum of:
    0.084687 = weight(_text_:searching in 1129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084687 = score(doc=1129,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.59964067 = fieldWeight in 1129, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1129)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this paper we present results from an investigation of religious information searching based on analyzing log files from a large general-purpose search engine. From approximately 15 million queries, we identified 124,422 that were part of 60,759 user sessions. We present a method for categorizing queries based on related terms and show differences in search patterns between religious searches and web searching more generally. We also investigate the search patterns found in queries related to 5 religions: Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. Different search patterns are found to emerge. Results from this study complement existing studies of religious information searching and provide a level of detailed analysis not reported to date. We show, for example, that sessions involving religion-related queries tend to last longer, that the lengths of religion-related queries are greater, and that the number of unique URLs clicked is higher when compared to all queries. The results of the study can serve to provide information on what this large population of users is actually searching for.

0.008926794 = product of:
  0.053560764 = sum of:
    0.053560764 = weight(_text_:searching in 3449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053560764 = score(doc=3449,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 3449, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3449)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

As new technologies and information delivery systems emerge, the way in which individuals search for information to support research, teaching, and creative activities is changing. To understand different aspects of researchers' information-seeking behavior, this article surveyed 2,063 academic researchers in natural science, engineering, and medical science from five research universities in the United States. A Web-based, in-depth questionnaire was designed to quantify researchers' information searching, information use, and information storage behaviors. Descriptive statistics are reported. Additionally, analysis of results is broken out by institutions to compare differences among universities. Significant findings are reported, with the biggest changes because of increased utilization of electronic methods for searching, sharing, and storing scholarly content, as well as for utilizing library services. Generally speaking, researchers in the five universities had similar information-seeking behavior, with small differences because of varying academic unit structures and myriad library services provided at the individual institutions.

0.0063121966 = product of:
  0.03787318 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 3728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=3728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 3728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3728)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A comprehensive and easy-to-use version of the best-selling "Know it All, Find It Fast" developed specifically for information professionals working in academic libraries, this will help you to tackle the questions most commonly asked by students, academics and researchers. It is a broad cross-disciplinary A-Z of themes including topics such as literature searching, plagiarism and using online resources are covered helping you to address any query confidently and quickly. Each topic is split into four sections to guide your response: typical questions listing the common enquiries you'll encounter; considerations exploring the issues and challenges that might arise; where to look listing annotated resources in print and online; and, tips and pitfalls outlining useful suggestions and common problems. This will prove an indispensable day-to-day guide for anyone working with students, academics and researchers in an academic library.

0.0063121966 = product of:
  0.03787318 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=2034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined the search behavior of 10 students as they completed assigned exercises for an online professional course in expert searching. The research objective was to identify, describe, and hypothesize about features of the behavior that are indicative of procedural knowledge gained during guided instruction. Log-data of search interaction were coded using a conceptual framework focused on components of search practice hypothesized to organize an expert searcher's attention during search. The coded data were analyzed using a measure of pointwise mutual information and state-transition analysis. Results of the study provide important insight for future investigation of domain-independent search expertise and for the design of systems that assist searchers in gaining expertise.

0.0063121966 = product of:
  0.03787318 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=2691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0063121966 = product of:
  0.03787318 = sum of:
    0.03787318 = weight(_text_:searching in 4253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03787318 = score(doc=4253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 4253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4253)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Drawing on the ideas of process philosophy, this study elaborates the nature of information-seeking process by approaching them as temporal developments. To this end, a conceptual analysis was made by comparing key models which approach information seeking as stage-based and cyclic processes. The nature of such processes was scrutinized by devoting attention to two main aspects, that is, the temporal order in which the constituents of information seeking appear during the process, and the changes occurring in the constituents. Stage-based approaches draw on linear time concept by conceptualizing such processes as sets of consecutive activities progressing toward a final point. Cyclic approaches conceptualize information-seeking processes as sets of iterative activities which may be repeated. The findings suggest that stage-based and cyclic approaches should not be opposite approaches; rather, they complement each other. However, cyclic models emphasizing the importance of feedback loops have gained more popularity in the modeling of web searching, whereas the interest in the development of stage-based approaches has decreased since the 1990s.

0.005951196 = product of:
  0.035707176 = sum of:
    0.035707176 = weight(_text_:searching in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035707176 = score(doc=4721,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.2528307 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

LCSH

Internet searching

Subject

Internet searching

0.0056583136 = product of:
  0.03394988 = sum of:
    0.03394988 = product of:
      0.06789976 = sum of:
        0.06789976 = weight(_text_:etc in 4074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06789976 = score(doc=4074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18910104 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 4074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Die Studieneinheit "Informationskompetenz" "sollte verpflichtender Kurs für Studenten aller Fachrichtungen sein" - so lautete eine der Rückmeldungen zu den beiden von der Universitätsbibliothek Regensburg betreuten Kursen im Rahmen der Evaluation von INK des Sommersemesters 2010. Ähnliche Rückmeldungen gehen fast jedes Sommersemester ein, so im Jahr 2006: "Mein Vorschlag ist, diesen Kurs in abgespeckter Form zu Beginn eines jeden Semesters für alle Studenten anzubieten, da hier sehr viel über die Benutzung der Bibliothek und richtiges Suchen gelernt werden kann, was eigentlich für alle Studenten sehr wichtig ist." Oder aus den Jahren 2008 ("Ich fände es gut, wenn der Kurs als Pflichtkurs für jeden Studenten eingerichtet werden würde bzw. Teilbereiche wie DBIS, EZB etc. als Pflichtveranstaltung in möglichst allen Fachbereichen existent wären.") und 2010 ("Sollte verpflichtender Kurs für Studenten aller Fachrichtungen sein!"). Diese Einschätzungen sowie die im fünften Jahr der Studieneinheit um fast 20% gestiegene Teilnehmerzahl seien daher Anlass zu einem kleinen Rückblick.

0.00533471 = product of:
  0.032008257 = sum of:
    0.032008257 = product of:
      0.06401651 = sum of:
        0.06401651 = weight(_text_:etc in 4518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06401651 = score(doc=4518,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18910104 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.33853072 = fieldWeight in 4518, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Die Internationalisierung der Studiengänge an deutschen Hochschulen schreitet stetig voran. Audits widmen sich dem Thema, Aktionsprogramme und einzelne Untersuchungen. Höchste Zeit für Bibliotheken, sich ebenfalls mit dem Thema auseinanderzusetzen und Produkte zu entwickeln, die Auskunft, Beratung und Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz für die Zielgruppe ausländische Studierende unterstützen. Nachdem bereits 2008 im Kreis der deutschen Teaching Librarians ein Glossar zu Begriffen der Informationskompetenz erarbeitet worden war, das für Online-Tutorials, E-Learning-Angebote und zahlreiche Veranstaltungen zur Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz eine einheitliche terminologische Grundlage bietet, liegt jetzt endlich eine englisch-deutsche Version dieses stark genutzten Tools vor. Sie wurde initiiert von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Informationskompetenz Nordrhein-Westfalen und dem Netzwerk Informationskompetenz Baden-Württemberg und im Rahmen einer Arbeitsgruppe von britischen und deutschen Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekaren erarbeitet sowie von der UB Kaiserslautern in bewährter Weise technisch betreut und über ihre Homepage zur Verfügung gestellt. Das Glossar ist über eine XML-Schnittstelle nahtlos an das jeweilige Corporate Design der nachnutzenden Institutionen anzupassen und kann so z.B. in den eigenen Fachinformationsseiten, Wissensdatenbanken etc. weitergenutzt werden. Eine einfache Verlinkung ist auf die Kaiserslauterner Seite und demnächst auch auf das Angebot im Portal http://www.informationskompetenz.de/glossar/ möglich. Das Projekt wurde gefördert von der ständigen Kommission des BID Bibliothek und Information International, die einen Fachaufenthalt der britischen Kollegen in Deutschland ermöglichte. Das Glossary richtet sich primär an die Zielgruppe ausländischer Studierender in Deutschland, die den Umgang mit deutschen Bibliothekskatalogen und den hierzulande üblichen Datenbanken und Informationsmitteln erlernen sollen und dazu eine englischsprachige Anleitung brauchen. Von Aufbau und Struktur her spiegelt das Glossary daher die deutsche Ursprungsversion eines Thesaurus wider. Nach einer kurzen Definition in einem ersten Satz folgen Ausführungen und gegebenenfalls Ober-, Unter- und verwandte Begriffen im semantischen Umfeld der Informationskompetenz sowie Zusatzmaterial in Form von Beispielen, Links etc. Durch Klicken auf ein Fähnchen-lcon schaltet man einfach von Deutsch auf Englisch um. Für das Glossary wurden die Lemmata jedoch nicht wortwörtlich übersetzt, sondern mit Blick auf den anglophonen Kulturkreis und den dort üblichen Fachwortschatz der Information Literacy adaptiert.

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 3979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=3979,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 3979, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3979)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 3991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=3991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 3991, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3991)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The importance of the acquisition and provision of information within knowledge work such as engineering is widely acknowledged. This article reports an extensive empirical study of such information behaviors in engineers, using a novel and effective work sampling method. Seventy-eight design engineers each carried a portable handheld computer (PDA) for 20 working days. Once every hour, they were prompted to enter data concerning the task they were currently performing, including the information behaviors in which they were engaging. The resultant data represent a comprehensive picture of engineers' information behaviors and the percentage of their working time for which each of these behaviors accounts (55.75% in total). Specific hypotheses concerning the time spent engaged in these behaviors were also tested. Accordingly, it was found that participants spent substantially more time receiving information they had not requested than information they had, and this pattern was also reflected when they provided others with information. Furthermore, although there was no difference found between the time participants spent searching for information from other people compared with nonhuman sources, in the former case they spent relatively less time locating the information source and information within that source, and relatively more time engaged in problem solving and decision making. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for theory and organizational practice.

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 4673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=4673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 4673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4673)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 1822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=1822,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 1822, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1822)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 2126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=2126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 2126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2126)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The motivation for this study was to better understand academics' searching and sensemaking processes when solving exploratory tasks for which they lack pre-existing frames. We focus on "influence" tasks because, although they appear to be unfamiliar, they arise in much academic discourse, at least tacitly. We report the processes of academics at different levels of seniority when completing exploratory search tasks that involved identifying influential members of their academic community and "rising stars," and similarly for an unfamiliar academic community. 11 think-aloud sessions followed by semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the roles of specific and general domain expertise in shaping information seeking and knowledge construction. Academics defined and completed the tasks through an iterative and interactive process of seeking and sensemaking, during which they constructed an understanding of their communities and determined qualities of "being influential". The Data/Frame Theory of Sensemaking was used to provide sensitising theoretical constructs. The study shows that both external and internal knowledge resources are essential to define a starting point or frame, make and support decisions, and experience satisfaction. Ill-defined or non-existent initial frames may cause unsubstantial or arbitrary decisions, and feelings of uncertainty and lack of confidence.

0.005260164 = product of:
  0.031560984 = sum of:
    0.031560984 = weight(_text_:searching in 3319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031560984 = score(doc=3319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14122958 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03491209 = queryNorm
        0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 3319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3319)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0039417557 = product of:
  0.023650533 = sum of:
    0.023650533 = product of:
      0.047301065 = sum of:
        0.047301065 = weight(_text_:22 in 3341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047301065 = score(doc=3341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2017 16:45:48

0.0037722092 = product of:
  0.022633255 = sum of:
    0.022633255 = product of:
      0.04526651 = sum of:
        0.04526651 = weight(_text_:etc in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04526651 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18910104 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.23937736 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0033446904 = product of:
  0.020068143 = sum of:
    0.020068143 = product of:
      0.040136285 = sum of:
        0.040136285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040136285 = score(doc=2658,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Dass eine erfolgreiche Suche nach im Unternehmen vorhandenen Informationen oftmals schwieriger zu bewerkstelligen ist als eine Suche im Internet, wird in der Privatwirtschaft zunehmend als Problem gesehen. Enterprise Search ist eine Strategie, diesem Problem zu begegnen. In einer Studie mit explorativem Charakter wurde der Frage nachgegangen, wie es um den Stand unternehmensweiten Suche in österreichischen Unternehmen bestellt ist. m Rahmen einer Onlinebefragung wurden dazu im März / April 2009 469 Unternehmen befragt. Es beteiligten sich 104 Unternehmen. Das entspricht einem Rücklauf von 22 %. Dieser Beitrag gibt Auskunft über Status quo der unternehmensweiten Informationsorganisation und -suche in Österreich und benennt unternehmens- bzw. personengebundene Faktoren, die darauf Einfluss haben. Im einzelnen werden Ergebnisse zu folgenden Aspekten präsentiert: Regelung der Informationsorganisation; Anreicherung unstrukturierter Informationen mit Metadaten; Probleme bei der Suche nach unternehmensinternen Informationen; täglicher Zeitaufwand für die Suche; vorhandene, wünschenswerte und benötigte Suchfunktionalitäten; Zufriedenheit mit der Suche und der Informationsorganisation Unternehmen.

Date

22. 1.2016 19:00:02

0.0031534042 = product of:
  0.018920425 = sum of:
    0.018920425 = product of:
      0.03784085 = sum of:
        0.03784085 = weight(_text_:22 in 1739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03784085 = score(doc=1739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1222562 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03491209 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 66(2015) H.1, S.22-28