Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.040286683 = product of:
  0.080573365 = sum of:
    0.080573365 = product of:
      0.16114673 = sum of:
        0.16114673 = weight(_text_:perception in 4060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16114673 = score(doc=4060,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.50146663 = fieldWeight in 4060, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the information-seeking behavior of science and social science research scholars, including service effectiveness, satisfaction level on different type of sources and various methods adopted by the scholars for keeping up to date. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using a questionnaire survey of 200, randomly selected, PhD students of science and social science departments of four universities in Kerala, India. Findings - Although similarities exist between social science and science PhD students with regard to information-seeking behavior, there are significant differences as well. There is a significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of print journals and database collection which are very relevant to the research purposes. There is no significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of e-journals, the most used source for keeping up to date. The study proved that scholars of both the fields are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the library in keeping them up to date with latest developments. Originality/value - The study is based on actual situation and the result can be used for library service redesign for different types of users.

0.028486984 = product of:
  0.056973968 = sum of:
    0.056973968 = product of:
      0.113947935 = sum of:
        0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113947935 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

0.028486984 = product of:
  0.056973968 = sum of:
    0.056973968 = product of:
      0.113947935 = sum of:
        0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113947935 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The large volumes of medical information available on the web may provide answers for a wide range of users attempting to solve health-related problems. While experts generally utilize reliable resources for diagnosis search and professional development, novices utilize different (social) web resources to obtain information that helps them manage their health or the health of people who they care for. A diverse number of related search topics address clinical diagnosis, advice searching, information sharing, connecting with experts, etc. This paper focuses on the extent to which expertise can impact clinical query formulation, document relevance assessment and retrieval performance in the context of tailoring retrieval models and systems to experts vs. non-experts. The results show that medical domain expertise 1) plays an important role in the lexical representations of information needs; 2) significantly influences the perception of relevance even among users with similar levels of expertise and 3) reinforces the idea that a single ground truth does not exist, thereby leading to the variability of system rankings with respect to the level of user's expertise. The findings of this study presents opportunities for the design of personalized health-related IR systems, but also for providing insights about the evaluation of such systems.

0.010174517 = product of:
  0.020349033 = sum of:
    0.020349033 = product of:
      0.040698066 = sum of:
        0.040698066 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040698066 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.008478764 = product of:
  0.016957529 = sum of:
    0.016957529 = product of:
      0.033915058 = sum of:
        0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033915058 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = 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

0.008478764 = product of:
  0.016957529 = sum of:
    0.016957529 = product of:
      0.033915058 = sum of:
        0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033915058 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = 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

0.008478764 = product of:
  0.016957529 = sum of:
    0.016957529 = product of:
      0.033915058 = sum of:
        0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033915058 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35

0.008478764 = product of:
  0.016957529 = sum of:
    0.016957529 = product of:
      0.033915058 = sum of:
        0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033915058 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.008478764 = product of:
  0.016957529 = sum of:
    0.016957529 = product of:
      0.033915058 = sum of:
        0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033915058 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5493, 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=5493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008478764 = product of:
  0.016957529 = sum of:
    0.016957529 = product of:
      0.033915058 = sum of:
        0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033915058 = score(doc=5842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5842, 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=5842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.006783011 = product of:
  0.013566022 = sum of:
    0.013566022 = product of:
      0.027132044 = sum of:
        0.027132044 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027132044 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1628, 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=1628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0050872583 = product of:
  0.010174517 = sum of:
    0.010174517 = product of:
      0.020349033 = sum of:
        0.020349033 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020349033 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22