Search (131 results, page 7 of 7)

0.0010838453 = product of:
  0.008670762 = sum of:
    0.008670762 = weight(_text_:information in 6937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008670762 = score(doc=6937,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6937, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6937)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1255-1261

0.0010838453 = product of:
  0.008670762 = sum of:
    0.008670762 = weight(_text_:information in 1327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008670762 = score(doc=1327,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1327, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1327)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Researchers have traditionally used bibliographic databases to search out information. Today, the full-text of resources is increasingly available for searching, and more researchers are performing full-text searches. This study compares differences in the number of articles discovered between metadata and full-text searches of the same literature cohort when searching for gene names in two biomedical literature domains. Three reviewers additionally ranked 100 articles in each domain. Significantly more articles were discovered via full-text searching; however, the precision of full-text searching also is significantly lower than that of metadata searching. Certain features of articles correlated with higher relevance ratings. A significant feature measured was the number of matches of the search term in the full-text of the article, with a larger number of matches having a statistically significant higher usefulness (i.e., relevance) rating. By using the number of hits of the search term in the full-text to rank the importance of the article, performance of full-text searching was improved so that both recall and precision were as good as or better than that for metadata searching. This suggests that full-text searching alone may be sufficient, and that metadata searching as a surrogate is not necessary.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.14, S.2341-2352

0.0010838453 = product of:
  0.008670762 = sum of:
    0.008670762 = weight(_text_:information in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008670762 = score(doc=2094,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Some of the most popular measures to evaluate information filtering systems are usually independent of the users because they are based in relevance judgments obtained from experts. On the other hand, the user-centred evaluation allows showing the different impressions that the users have perceived about the system running. This work is focused on discussing the problem of user-centred versus system-centred evaluation of a Web content personalization system where the personalization is based on a user model that stores long term (section, categories and keywords) and short term interests (adapted from user provided feedback). The user-centred evaluation is based on questionnaires filled in by the users before and after using the system and the system-centred evaluation is based on the comparison between ranking of documents, obtained from the application of a multi-tier selection process, and binary relevance judgments collected previously from real users. The user-centred and system-centred evaluations performed with 106 users during 14 working days have provided valuable data concerning the behaviour of the users with respect to issues such as document relevance or the relative importance attributed to different ways of personalization. The results obtained shows general satisfaction on both the personalization processes (selection, adaptation and presentation) and the system as a whole.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.3, S.1293-1307

0.001072952 = product of:
  0.008583616 = sum of:
    0.008583616 = weight(_text_:information in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008583616 = score(doc=2364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 55(2004) H.4, S.211-220

0.001072952 = product of:
  0.008583616 = sum of:
    0.008583616 = weight(_text_:information in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008583616 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.970-979

9.196732E-4 = product of:
  0.0073573855 = sum of:
    0.0073573855 = weight(_text_:information in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073573855 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Theme

Information Gateway

8.6707616E-4 = product of:
  0.0069366093 = sum of:
    0.0069366093 = weight(_text_:information in 840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0069366093 = score(doc=840,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 840, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=840)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper reports the findings of a study designed to explore web searchers' perceptions of the causes of their search failure and success. In particular, it seeks to discover the extent to which the constructs locus of control and attribution theory might provide useful frameworks for understanding searchers' perceptions. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of inductive and deductive approaches were employed. Perceptions of failed and successful searches were derived from the inductive analysis of using open-ended qualitative interviews with a sample of 37 biologists at the University of Sheffield. These perceptions were classified into "internal" and "external" attributions, and the relationships between these categories and "successful" and "failed" searches were analysed deductively to test the extent to which they might be explainable using locus of control and attribution theory interpretive frameworks. Findings - All searchers were readily able to recall "successful" and "unsuccessful" searches. In a large majority of cases (82.4 per cent), they clearly attributed each search to either internal (e.g. ability or effort) or external (e.g. luck or information not being available) factors. The pattern of such relationships was analysed, and mapped onto those that would be predicted by locus of control and attribution theory. The authors conclude that the potential of these theoretical frameworks to illuminate one's understanding of web searching, and associated training, merits further systematic study. Research limitations/implications - The findings are based on a relatively small sample of academic and research staff in a particular subject area. Importantly, also, the study can at best provide a prima facie case for further systematic study since, although the patterns of attribution behaviour accord with those predictable by locus of control and attribution theory, data relating to the predictive elements of these theories (e.g. levels of confidence and achievement) were not available. This issue is discussed, and recommendations made for further work. Originality/value - The findings provide some empirical support for the notion that locus of control and attribution theory might - subject to the limitations noted above - be potentially useful theoretical frameworks for helping us better understand web-based information seeking. If so, they could have implications particularly for better understanding of searchers' motivations, and for the design and development of more effective search training programmes.

7.663943E-4 = product of:
  0.0061311545 = sum of:
    0.0061311545 = weight(_text_:information in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061311545 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1242-1254

7.663943E-4 = product of:
  0.0061311545 = sum of:
    0.0061311545 = weight(_text_:information in 5175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061311545 = score(doc=5175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5175)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.14, S.1296-1304

7.663943E-4 = product of:
  0.0061311545 = sum of:
    0.0061311545 = weight(_text_:information in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061311545 = score(doc=5204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.5, S.359-364

7.663943E-4 = product of:
  0.0061311545 = sum of:
    0.0061311545 = weight(_text_:information in 5231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061311545 = score(doc=5231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06322253 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036014426 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5231)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.879-882