Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04801744 = product of:
  0.19206975 = sum of:
    0.19206975 = weight(_text_:assess in 6918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19206975 = score(doc=6918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.5210289 = fieldWeight in 6918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6918)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Proposes a reference interview strategy that will allow the reference librarian to: efficiently assess the information need of undergraduates undertaking a social science assignment, label the information need, and assign the most appropriate online search strategy to satisfy this need

0.033891086 = product of:
  0.13556434 = sum of:
    0.13556434 = weight(_text_:22 in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13556434 = score(doc=1448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1448, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1448)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2005 19:53:09

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2420)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The primary aim of the study was to investigate the effect of the absence of postings information on online searches and searching behaviour and these results were reported in Journal of information science 20(1994) no.1. The secondary aim, reported here, was to assess the cognitive styles of the participants to ensure that the population was sufficiently vareid in this respect and to investigate possible correlations between cognitive ability and searching behaviour. Throughout the project, searches were made by postgraduates at the department of information studies, University of Sheffield using the LISA database on CD-ROM. A total of 67 searchers carried out 275 searches, both with and without postings information. Reports significant differences in both searching behaviour and search outcomes obtained by those with different learning styles, with and without postings information. Significant correlations were found between cognitice styles and online searching. Searchers characterized by different learning styles tend to adopt different search strategies and strategies associated with comprehension and operation learning styles result in qualitatively different searching performance. Searching approaches associated with a versatile style are the most effective. Making feedback in the form of postings available enables comprehension and operation learners, and field independent searchers, to change their apporach in qualitatively different ways. Other findings are reported and discussed

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 4574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=4574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 4574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study is based an earlier research by the author that employed social judgment analysis (SJA; J. SteflMabry, 2001, 2003) to identify the information judgment preferences held by professional groups. This study explores the extent to which individuals, professional groups, and subgroups are self-aware of their judgment profiles. Three specialized groups of professionals-law enforcement, medicine, and education-were chosen to determine if preference profiles cluster around professions or around demographic and other background variables. As the proliferation of data continues to increase, the need to understand users' media preference and selection decisions is of tremendous value to every industry, governmental agency, and institution of learning. In 1966, H. Menzel first raised concern about the reliability of users' to self-assess, and scientists continue to explore the issue of competency in human judgment. To understand the reliability of users' self-assessment regarding media preferences, this study examines the extent to which individuals and groups are self-aware of the empirical judgment profiles they employ in evaluating information source scenarios. This investigation explores the congruence of three groups of professionals' self-reported media preferences as compared to their empirical judgment values, as defined by social judgment analysis.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Categorized overviews of web search results are a promising way to support user exploration, understanding, and discovery. These search interfaces combine a metadata-based overview with the list of search results to enable a rich form of interaction. A study of 24 sophisticated users carrying out complex tasks suggests how searchers may adapt their search tactics when using categorized overviews. This mixed methods study evaluated categorized overviews of web search results organized into thematic, geographic, and government categories. Participants conducted four exploratory searches during a 2-hour session to generate ideas for newspaper articles about specified topics such as "human smuggling." Results showed that subjects explored deeper while feeling more organized, and that the categorized overview helped subjects better assess their results, although no significant differences were detected in the quality of the article ideas. A qualitative analysis of searcher comments identified seven tactics that participants reported adopting when using categorized overviews. This paper concludes by proposing a set of guidelines for the design of exploratory search interfaces. An understanding of the impact of categorized overviews on search tactics will be useful to web search researchers, search interface designers, information architects and web developers.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that users' cognitive styles play an important role during web searching. However, only a limited number of studies have showed the relationship between cognitive styles and web search behavior. Most importantly, it is not clear which components of web search behavior are influenced by cognitive styles. This article examines the relationships between users' cognitive styles and their web searching and develops a model that portrays the relationship. The study uses qualitative and quantitative analyses based on data gathered from 50 participants. A questionnaire was utilized to collect participants' demographic information, and Riding's (1991) Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) test to assess their cognitive styles. Results show that users' cognitive styles influenced their information-searching strategies, query reformulation behavior, web navigational styles, and information-processing approaches. The user model developed in this study depicts the fundamental relationships between users' web search behavior and their cognitive styles. Modeling web search behavior with a greater understanding of users' cognitive styles can help information science researchers and information systems designers to bridge the semantic gap between the user and the systems. Implications of the research for theory and practice, and future work, are discussed.

0.030010901 = product of:
  0.120043606 = sum of:
    0.120043606 = weight(_text_:assess in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120043606 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.32564306 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.029654698 = product of:
  0.118618794 = sum of:
    0.118618794 = weight(_text_:22 in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118618794 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2005 19:52:29

0.029654698 = product of:
  0.118618794 = sum of:
    0.118618794 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118618794 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3924)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.02400872 = product of:
  0.09603488 = sum of:
    0.09603488 = weight(_text_:assess in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09603488 = score(doc=4497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.26051444 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Key Features - Importantly, the book enables readers to develop strategies which will continue to be useful despite the rapidly-evolving state of the Internet and Internet technologies - it is not about technological `tricks'. - Enables readers to be aware of and compensate for bias and errors which are ubiquitous an the Internet. - Provides contemporary information an the deficiencies in web skills of novice users as well as practical techniques for teaching such users. The Authors Dr Alison Stacey works at the Learning Resource Centre, Cambridge Regional College. Dr Adrian Stacey, formerly based at Cambridge University, is a software programmer. Readership The book is aimed at a wide range of librarians and other information professionals who need to retrieve information from the Internet efficiently, to evaluate their confidence in the information they retrieve and/or to train others to use the Internet. It is primarily aimed at intermediate to advanced users of the Internet. Contents Fundamentals of information retrieval from the Internet - why learn web searching technique; types of information requests; patterns for information retrieval; leveraging the technology: Search term choice: pinpointing information an the web - why choose queries carefully; making search terms work together; how to pick search terms; finding the 'unfindable': Blas an the Internet - importance of bias; sources of bias; usergenerated bias: selecting information with which you already agree; assessing and compensating for bias; case studies: Query reformulation and longer term strategies - how to interact with your search engine; foraging for information; long term information retrieval: using the Internet to find trends; automating searches: how to make your machine do your work: Assessing the quality of results- how to assess and ensure quality: The novice user and teaching internet skills - novice users and their problems with the web; case study: research in a college library; interpreting 'second hand' web information.

0.02400872 = product of:
  0.09603488 = sum of:
    0.09603488 = weight(_text_:assess in 5167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09603488 = score(doc=5167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36863554 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.26051444 = fieldWeight in 5167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8947687 = idf(docFreq=330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5167)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.021181928 = product of:
  0.08472771 = sum of:
    0.08472771 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08472771 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=2404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2404, 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=2404)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25.12.1998 19:22:31

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 281, 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=281)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:53:10

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3450, 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=3450)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 4.2005 14:52:22

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3612, 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=3612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

2. 7.2005 12:22:50

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5047, 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=5047)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

5. 6.2006 11:22:23

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=331,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 331, 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=331)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 5.2007 13:55:22

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 813, 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=813)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

23.12.2007 12:22:16

0.012709156 = product of:
  0.050836623 = sum of:
    0.050836623 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050836623 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21899058 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.062536046 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.