Search (116 results, page 6 of 6)

0.0011749709 = product of:
  0.0023499418 = sum of:
    0.0023499418 = product of:
      0.0046998835 = sum of:
        0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 5160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046998835 = score(doc=5160,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5160, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Choi and Rasmussen collect queries to the Library of Congress's American Memory photo archive from 48 scholars in American History by way of interviews and pre and post search questionnaires. Their interest is in the types of information need common in the visual domain, and the categories of terms most often used or indicated as appropriate for the description of image contents. Each search resulted in the provision of 20 items for evaluation by the searcher. Terms in queries and acceptable retrievals were categorized by a who, what, when, where faceted classification and queries into four needs categories; specific, general, abstract, and subjective. Two out of three analysts assigned all 38 requests into the same one of the four categories and in 19 cases all three agreed. General/nameable needs accounted for 60.5%, specific needs 26.3%, 7.9% for general/abstract, and 5.3% for subjective needs. The facet analysis indicated most content was of the form person/thing or event/condition limited by geography or time.

Type

a

0.0011749709 = product of:
  0.0023499418 = sum of:
    0.0023499418 = product of:
      0.0046998835 = sum of:
        0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046998835 = score(doc=991,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 991, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011749709 = product of:
  0.0023499418 = sum of:
    0.0023499418 = product of:
      0.0046998835 = sum of:
        0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 2097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046998835 = score(doc=2097,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2097, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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.

Type

a

0.0011749709 = product of:
  0.0023499418 = sum of:
    0.0023499418 = product of:
      0.0046998835 = sum of:
        0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046998835 = score(doc=3821,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Key terms related to information searching and search models are defined. A historic context is provided to illustrate the evolution of the four main digital environments that users interact with in their search process to offer readers background information regarding the transition from manual information systems to computer-based information retrieval (IR) systems, as well as the transition from intermediary searching to end-user searching. Emphasis is placed on the review of different levels of information searching from search tactics/moves, search strategies, and usage patterns, to search models and associated factors in relation to task, user knowledge structure, IR system design, and social-organization context. Search models are further classified into two types, with one type illustrating information search process (ISP) and the other type emphasizing the factors that influence the process. In addition, unsolved problems and future research are discussed and suggested.

Type

a

0.0011749709 = product of:
  0.0023499418 = sum of:
    0.0023499418 = product of:
      0.0046998835 = sum of:
        0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 4212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0046998835 = score(doc=4212,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4212, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents QACID an ontology-based Question Answering system applied to the CInema Domain. This system allows users to retrieve information from formal ontologies by using as input queries formulated in natural language. The original characteristic of QACID is the strategy used to fill the gap between users' expressiveness and formal knowledge representation. This approach is based on collections of user queries and offers a simple adaptability to deal with multilingual capabilities, inter-domain portability and changes in user information requirements. All these capabilities permit developing Question Answering applications for actual users. This system has been developed and tested on the Spanish language and using an ontology modelling the cinema domain. The performance level achieved enables the use of the system in real environments.

Type

a

0.0011077732 = product of:
  0.0022155463 = sum of:
    0.0022155463 = product of:
      0.0044310926 = sum of:
        0.0044310926 = weight(_text_:a in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0044310926 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

9.791424E-4 = product of:
  0.0019582848 = sum of:
    0.0019582848 = product of:
      0.0039165695 = sum of:
        0.0039165695 = weight(_text_:a in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039165695 = score(doc=198,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that queries to information retrieval systems will yield more relevant results if they contain multiple topic-related terms and use Boolean and phrase operators to enhance interpretation. Although studies have shown that the users of Web-based search engines typically enter short, term-based queries and rarely use search operators, little information exists concerning the effects of term and operator usage on the relevancy of search results. In this study, search engine users formulated queries on eight search topics. Each query was submitted to the user-specified search engine, and relevancy ratings for the retrieved pages were assigned. Expert-formulated queries were also submitted and provided a basis for comparing relevancy ratings across search engines. Data analysis based on our research model of the term and operator factors affecting relevancy was then conducted. The results show that the difference in the number of terms between expert and nonexpert searches, the percentage of matching terms between those searches, and the erroneous use of nonsupported operators in nonexpert searches explain most of the variation in the relevancy of search results. These findings highlight the need for designing search engine interfaces that provide greater support in the areas of term selection and operator usage

Type

a

9.791424E-4 = product of:
  0.0019582848 = sum of:
    0.0019582848 = product of:
      0.0039165695 = sum of:
        0.0039165695 = weight(_text_:a in 0) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039165695 = score(doc=0,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 0, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=0)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As information becomes more ubiquitous and the demands that searchers have on search systems grow, there is a need to support search behaviors beyond simple lookup. Information seeking is the process or activity of attempting to obtain information in both human and technological contexts. Exploratory search describes an information-seeking problem context that is open-ended, persistent, and multifaceted, and information-seeking processes that are opportunistic, iterative, and multitactical. Exploratory searchers aim to solve complex problems and develop enhanced mental capacities. Exploratory search systems support this through symbiotic human-machine relationships that provide guidance in exploring unfamiliar information landscapes. Exploratory search has gained prominence in recent years. There is an increased interest from the information retrieval, information science, and human-computer interaction communities in moving beyond the traditional turn-taking interaction model supported by major Web search engines, and toward support for human intelligence amplification and information use. In this lecture, we introduce exploratory search, relate it to relevant extant research, outline the features of exploratory search systems, discuss the evaluation of these systems, and suggest some future directions for supporting exploratory search. Exploratory search is a new frontier in the search domain and is becoming increasingly important in shaping our future world.

9.693015E-4 = product of:
  0.001938603 = sum of:
    0.001938603 = product of:
      0.003877206 = sum of:
        0.003877206 = weight(_text_:a in 199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003877206 = score(doc=199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 199, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

9.693015E-4 = product of:
  0.001938603 = sum of:
    0.001938603 = product of:
      0.003877206 = sum of:
        0.003877206 = weight(_text_:a in 891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003877206 = score(doc=891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

9.693015E-4 = product of:
  0.001938603 = sum of:
    0.001938603 = product of:
      0.003877206 = sum of:
        0.003877206 = weight(_text_:a in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003877206 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

8.308299E-4 = product of:
  0.0016616598 = sum of:
    0.0016616598 = product of:
      0.0033233196 = sum of:
        0.0033233196 = weight(_text_:a in 4861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033233196 = score(doc=4861,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4861, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

7.8331394E-4 = product of:
  0.0015666279 = sum of:
    0.0015666279 = product of:
      0.0031332558 = sum of:
        0.0031332558 = weight(_text_:a in 312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0031332558 = score(doc=312,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 312, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How do you find your way in an age of information overload? How can you filter streams of complex information to pull out only what you want? Why does it matter how information is structured when Google seems to magically bring up the right answer to your questions? What does it mean to be "findable" in this day and age? This eye-opening new book examines the convergence of information and connectivity. Written by Peter Morville, author of the groundbreakin Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, the book defines our current age as a state of unlimited findability. In other words, anyone can find anything at any time. Complete navigability. Morville discusses the Internet, GIS, and other network technologies that are coming together to make unlimited findability possible. He explores how the melding of these innovations impacts society, since Web access is now a standard requirement for successful people and businesses. But before he does that, Morville looks back at the history of wayfinding and human evolution, suggesting that our fear of being lost has driven us to create maps, charts, and now, the mobile Internet.
The book's central thesis is that information literacy, information architecture, and usability are all critical components of this new world order. Hand in hand with that is the contention that only by planning and designing the best possible software, devices, and Internet, will we be able to maintain this connectivity in the future. Morville's book is highlighted with full color illustrations and rich examples that bring his prose to life. Ambient Findability doesn't preach or pretend to know all the answers. Instead, it presents research, stories, and examples in support of its novel ideas. Are w truly at a critical point in our evolution where the quality of our digital networks will dictate how we behave as a species? Is findability indeed the primary key to a successful global marketplace in the 21st century and beyond. Peter Morville takes you on a thought-provoking tour of these memes and more -- ideas that will not only fascinate but will stir your creativity in practical ways that you can apply to your work immediately.

Footnote

Das zweite Kapitel ("A Brief History of Wayfinding") beschreibt, wie Menschen sich in Umgebungen zurechtfinden. Dies ist insofern interessant, als hier nicht erst bei Informationssystemen oder dem WWW begonnen wird, sondern allgemeine Erkenntnisse beispielsweise über die Orientierung in natürlichen Umgebungen präsentiert werden. Viele typische Verhaltensweisen der Nutzer von Informationssystemen können so erklärt werden. So interessant dieses Thema allerdings ist, wirkt das Kapitel leider doch nur wie eine Zusammenstellung von Informationen aus zweiter Hand. Offensichtlich ist, dass Morville nicht selbst an diesen Themen geforscht hat, sondern die Ergebnisse (wenn auch auf ansprechende Weise) zusammengeschrieben hat. Dieser Eindruck bestätigt sich auch in weiteren Kapiteln: Ein flüssig geschriebener Text, der es jedoch an einigen Stellen an Substanz fehlen lässt. Kapitel drei, "Information Interaction" beginnt mit einem Rückgriff auf Calvin Mooers zentrale Aussage aus dem Jahre 1959: "An information retrieval system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to have information than for him not to have it." In der Tat sollte man sich dies bei der Erstellung von Informationssystemen immer vergegenwärtigen; die Reihe der Systeme, die gerade an dieser Hürde gescheitert sind, ist lang. Das weitere Kapitel führt in einige zentrale Konzepte der Informationswissenschaft (Definition des Begriffs Information, Erläuterung des Information Retrieval, Wissensrepräsentation, Information Seeking Behaviour) ein, allerdings ohne jeden Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit. Es wirkt vielmehr so, dass der Autor sich die gerade für sein Anliegen passenden Konzepte auswählt und konkurrierende Ansätze beiseite lässt. Nur ein Beispiel: Im Abschnitt "Information Interaction" wird relativ ausführlich das Konzept des Berrypicking nach Marcia J. Bates präsentiert, allerdings wird es geradezu als exklusiv verkauft, was es natürlich bei weitem nicht ist. Natürlich kann es nicht Aufgabe dieses Buchs sein, einen vollständigen Überblick über alle Theorien des menschlichen Suchverhaltens zu geben (dies ist an anderer Stelle vorbildlich geleistet worden'), aber doch wenigstens der Hinweis auf einige zentrale Ansätze wäre angebracht gewesen. Spätestens in diesem Kapitel wird klar, dass das Buch sich definitiv nicht an Informationswissenschaftler wendet, die auf der einen Seite mit den grundlegenden Themen vertraut sein dürften, andererseits ein wenig mehr Tiefgang erwarten würden. Also stellt sich die Frage - und diese ist zentral für die Bewertung des gesamten Werks.

6.923582E-4 = product of:
  0.0013847164 = sum of:
    0.0013847164 = product of:
      0.0027694327 = sum of:
        0.0027694327 = weight(_text_:a in 4574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027694327 = score(doc=4574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

6.923582E-4 = product of:
  0.0013847164 = sum of:
    0.0013847164 = product of:
      0.0027694327 = sum of:
        0.0027694327 = weight(_text_:a in 6044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027694327 = score(doc=6044,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 6044, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

6.923582E-4 = product of:
  0.0013847164 = sum of:
    0.0013847164 = product of:
      0.0027694327 = sum of:
        0.0027694327 = weight(_text_:a in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027694327 = score(doc=2034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 2034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a