Search (89 results, page 3 of 5)

0.0037028994 = product of:
  0.022217397 = sum of:
    0.022217397 = weight(_text_:internet in 536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022217397 = score(doc=536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=536)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article, we present an in-home observation and in-context research study investigating how 38 adolescents aged 14-17 search on the Internet. We present the search trends adolescents display and develop a framework of search roles that these trends help define. We compare these trends and roles to similar trends and roles found in prior work with children ages 7, 9, and 11. We use these comparisons to make recommendations to adult stakeholders such as researchers, designers, and information literacy educators about the best ways to design search tools for children and adolescents, as well as how to use the framework of searching roles to find better methods of educating youth searchers. Major findings include the seven roles of adolescent searchers, and evidence that adolescents are social in their computer use, have a greater knowledge of sources than younger children, and that adolescents are less frustrated by searching tasks than younger children.

0.0037028994 = product of:
  0.022217397 = sum of:
    0.022217397 = weight(_text_:internet in 3294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022217397 = score(doc=3294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 3294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3294)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.0034911274 = product of:
  0.020946763 = sum of:
    0.020946763 = weight(_text_:internet in 1264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020946763 = score(doc=1264,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.18451498 = fieldWeight in 1264, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1264)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Over the past decade, the volume of information available digitally over the Internet has grown enormously. Technical developments in the area of search, such as Google's Page Rank algorithm, have proved so good at serving relevant results that Internet search has become integrated into daily human activity. One can endlessly explore topics of interest simply by querying and reading through the resulting links. Yet, although search engines are well known for providing relevant results based on users' queries, users do not always receive the results they are looking for. Google's Director of Research describes clickstream evidence of frustrated users repeatedly reformulating queries and searching through page after page of results. Given the general quality of search engine results, one must consider the possibility that the frustrated user's query is not effective; that is, it does not describe the essence of the user's interest. Indeed, extensive research into human search behavior has found that humans are not very effective at formulating good search queries that describe what they are interested in. Ideally, the user should simply point to a portion of text that sparked the user's interest, and a system should automatically formulate a search query that captures the essence of the text. In this paper, we describe an implemented system that provides this capability. We first describe how our work differs from existing work in automatic query formulation, and propose a new method for improved quantification of the relevance of candidate search terms drawn from input text using phrase-level analysis. We then propose an implementable method designed to provide relevant queries based on a user's text input. We demonstrate the quality of our results and performance of our system through experimental studies. Our results demonstrate that our system produces relevant search terms with roughly two-thirds precision and recall compared to search terms selected by experts, and that typical users find significantly more relevant results (31% more relevant) more quickly (64% faster) using our system than self-formulated search queries. Further, we show that our implementation can scale to request loads of up to 10 requests per second within current online responsiveness expectations (<2-second response times at the highest loads tested).

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=587)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 4577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=4577,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 4577, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4577)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

To better understand how individuals and groups derive satisfaction from information, it is important to identify the information source preferences they apply in information seeking and decision making. Four informal propositions drove the structure and underlying logic of this study, forming a preliminary outline of a theory of information source preference profiles and their influence an information satisfaction. This study employed Social Judgment Analysis (SJA) to identify the information judgment preferences held by professional groups for six selected information sources: word of mouth, expert oral advice, Internet, print news, nonfiction books, and radio/television news. The research was designed as an hypotheses-generating exploratory study employing a purposive sample (n = 90) and generated four empirically supported, testable hypotheses about user satisfaction with information sources. The SJA judgment functions revealed the influences of volume and polarity (i.e., positive versus negative information) an information satisfaction. By advancing the understanding of how information source preferences can be identified empirically and their influence an information satisfaction, this research reflects a first, small step toward understanding "satisficing." Satisficing behaviors result in early termination of information search processes when individuals, facing incomplete information, are sufficiently satisfied to assume risks and execute decisions.

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 5119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=5119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 5119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5119)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 221, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=221)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=335)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This research contrasts two different conceptions, fields and pathways, of individual information behavior in context. These different approaches imply different relationships between actors and their information environments and, thus, encapsulate different views of the relationship between individual actions and contexts. We discuss these different theoretical views, then empirically compare and contrast them. The operationalization of these conceptions is based on different analytic treatments of the same raw data: a battery of three questions based on respondent's unaided recall of the sources they would consult for information on inherited cancers, a particularly rich information seeking problem. These operationalizations are then analyzed in a nomological network of related concepts drawn from an omnibus survey of 882 adults. The results indicated four clusters for fields and 16 different pathways, indicating increased fragmentation of information environments, with different underlying logics and active ingredients, although the use of the Internet appears to be an emerging common theme. The analysis of the nomological network suggests that both approaches may have applications for particular problems. In the implications, we compare and contrast these approaches, discussing their significance for future methodological, analytical, and theoretical developments.

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 2565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=2565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 2565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2565)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 3623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=3623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 3623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3623)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 2167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=2167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 2167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2167)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In explicit collaborative search, two or more individuals coordinate their efforts toward a shared goal. Every day, Internet users with similar information needs have the potential to collaborate. However, online search is typically performed in solitude. Existing search systems do not promote explicit collaborations, and collaboration opportunities (collabportunities) are missed. In this article, we describe a method to evaluate the feasibility of transforming these collabportunities into recommendations for explicit collaboration. We developed a technique called pseudocollaboration to evaluate the benefits and costs of collabportunities through simulations. We evaluate the performance of our method using three data sets: (a) data from single users' search sessions, (b) data with collaborative search sessions between pairs of searchers, and (c) logs from a large-scale search engine with search sessions of thousands of searchers. Our results establish when and how collabportunities would significantly help or hinder the search process versus searches conducted individually. The method that we describe has implications for the design and implementation of recommendation systems for explicit collaboration. It also connects system-mediated and user-mediated collaborative search, whereby the system evaluates the likely benefits of collaborating for a search task and helps searchers make more informed decisions on initiating and executing such a collaboration.

0.0029206579 = product of:
  0.017523946 = sum of:
    0.017523946 = product of:
      0.052571837 = sum of:
        0.052571837 = weight(_text_:29 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052571837 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Proceedings of the 15th National IASLIC Conference, Annamalainagar, Tamil Nadu, India, 26-29 December 1992. Ed. by. A. Chatterjee et al

0.0028943846 = product of:
  0.017366307 = sum of:
    0.017366307 = product of:
      0.05209892 = sum of:
        0.05209892 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05209892 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, 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=5835)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.0026183454 = product of:
  0.015710073 = sum of:
    0.015710073 = weight(_text_:internet in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015710073 = score(doc=1270,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.13838623 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

0.0024685997 = product of:
  0.014811598 = sum of:
    0.014811598 = weight(_text_:internet in 5167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014811598 = score(doc=5167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 5167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5167)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this issue Ford, Miller and Moss utilize 68 volunteers from a population of 250 Master's students to complete on the web three search tasks with clear fact based goals and three or less facets. One task required broadening the search concepts from those given, a second provided a specific terminology for one facet but required a second facet that would require translation, and the third required general to specific transformation. The students were measured as to their performance on Entewistle's Revised Inventory of Approaches to Studying providing values for ten study variables and asked to assess their experience on the Internet, with Alta Vista, and with Boolean search. Searches were conducted on Alta Vista using Netscape Navigator 4 with participants free to choose and switch Boolean, best match or combined search modes at will while a front end script recorded all submitted searches and help access. Search related variables extracted were from Boolean only queries, best match only queries, and combined queries. Factor analyses were conducted on all variables for each search mode for each search. In task one Boolean is differentiated from best match search by sharing high loads on active interest, intention to reproduce, fear of failure, and relating ideas. The combined searcher is linked with the best match searcher with low active interest, low intention to reproduce and low fear of failure. In task 2 Boolean is differentiated from best match search by sharing high loads on intention to reproduce and low on intention to understand. Best match loads positively with intention to understand and negatively with intention to reproduce. Combined searching linked with both good and with poor time management. In task 3 the loads mimic task 1. It seems Boolean is consistently linked to a reproductive rather than a meaning seeking approach, but also with high levels of interest and fear of failure. Best match associates with the converse of these measures.

0.0024685997 = product of:
  0.014811598 = sum of:
    0.014811598 = weight(_text_:internet in 3412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014811598 = score(doc=3412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 3412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3412)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Theme

Internet

0.002336526 = product of:
  0.014019156 = sum of:
    0.014019156 = product of:
      0.042057466 = sum of:
        0.042057466 = weight(_text_:29 in 3136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042057466 = score(doc=3136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3136, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3136)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.1996 19:58:10

0.002336526 = product of:
  0.014019156 = sum of:
    0.014019156 = product of:
      0.042057466 = sum of:
        0.042057466 = weight(_text_:29 in 7255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042057466 = score(doc=7255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 7255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7255)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 33(1996) no.1, S.29-38