Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.099298805 = product of:
  0.19859761 = sum of:
    0.14671256 = weight(_text_:fields in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14671256 = score(doc=3612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.4642173 = fieldWeight in 3612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3612)
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper results of a field study into the need for research information of different user groups are presented: scientists, policy makers and policy researchers, industry and media. Main questions of semi-structured interviews were: what kind of research information users need, what kind of research information resources are used and which information resources are missing at the moment. User groups are missing for a diversity of reasons the overview of research, experts and institutes in the different scientific fields. Especially for the accessibility and transparency of the scientific world these overviews are reported to be needed. Neither Google nor any of the research institutes or policy research organisations are able to present surveys for different science fields at the moment. Giving users the possibility to search, browse and navigate through accessible and more specialised layers of research information might give answers to different user groups simultaneously.

Date

2. 7.2005 12:22:50

0.03743447 = product of:
  0.14973788 = sum of:
    0.14973788 = weight(_text_:fields in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14973788 = score(doc=975,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.4737898 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.034590032 = product of:
  0.13836013 = sum of:
    0.13836013 = weight(_text_:22 in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13836013 = score(doc=1448,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.030266277 = product of:
  0.12106511 = sum of:
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.030266277 = product of:
  0.12106511 = sum of:
    0.12106511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12106511 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.03025792 = product of:
  0.12103168 = sum of:
    0.12103168 = weight(_text_:fields in 3465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12103168 = score(doc=3465,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.38295972 = fieldWeight in 3465, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3465)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recent work in automatic question answering has called for question taxonomies as a critical component of the process of machine understanding of questions. There is a long tradition of classifying questions in library reference services, and digital reference services have a strong need for automation to support scalability. Digital reference and question answering systems have the potential to arrive at a highly fruitful symbiosis. To move towards this goal, an extensive review was conducted of bodies of literature from several fields that deal with questions, to identify question taxonomies that exist in these bodies of literature. In the course of this review, five question taxonomies were identified, at four levels of linguistic analysis.

0.02161877 = product of:
  0.08647508 = sum of:
    0.08647508 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08647508 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research in information science aims to comprehend the facilitation of access to information for supporting purposeful action. The major themes to be addressed have been how information is organized for access, how it is retrieved from storage, and how it is sought out and used for various purposes. Two central research areas in the field are information retrieval (IR) and information seeking (IS) (Vakkari & Rochester, 1998). Although intuitively the fields seem to be overlapping, their research communities have been active in their own enclosures. Few researchers have visited the neighboring side. However, there are researchers (Bates, 1989; Belkin & Vickery, 1986; Belkin, 1993; Ellis, 1989; Ingwersen, 1992, 1996; Järvelin 1987; Kuhlthau, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Saracevic & Kantor, 1988) who have stressed the need to connect results from both research traditions. IR can be seen as a part of a broader process of information seeking. By IS is understood a process of searching, obtaining and using information for a purpose (e.g., form a solution for a task) when a person does not have sufficient prior knowledge. By 1R is understood the use of an information system for obtaining relevant information for a purpose (e.g., a task). This implies that information systems are a specific means among other sources and channels for obtaining information.

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 4543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=4543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 4543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4543)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper aims to explore the concepts of interaction and interactivity presented in different theoretical models in the fields of human-computer interaction (HCI) and information-seeking/searching behaviour, and to relate these to information retrieval (IR) research. It is suggested that interaction in HCI is primarily concerned with establishing a user/system dialogue at the user interface and does not address the interactive characteristics of IR operational tasks. A distinction is made between general informationseeking models and information-searching models for computerised systems. The former are deemed to provide a useful framework for characterising interaction at the task level, with the structural relationship between tasks as well as the dynamic transition from one task to another being key features of the interactive process. Although the latter are all concerned with how searchers interact with IR systems, each of the models examined represents user interaction at different levels of abstraction. Taken together they provide complementary views of a highly dynamic process. Three principal aspects of interaction are identified and discussed: interaction within and across tasks; the notion of interaction as task sharing; and interaction as a discourse. In conclusion the adoption of an interaction paradigm for IR research is advocated and examples of empirical work for supporting interactive searching and retrieval are provided.

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 4060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=4060,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 4060, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4060)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0216128 = product of:
  0.0864512 = sum of:
    0.0864512 = weight(_text_:fields in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0864512 = score(doc=528,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31604284 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.27354267 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.951651 = idf(docFreq=849, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Despite being necessary, keeping up to date with new information and trends remains challenging in many fields due to information overload, time constraints, and insufficient evaluation skills. Collaboration, or sharing the effort among group members, may be a solution, but more knowledge is needed. To guide future research on the potential role of collaboration in keeping up to date, we conducted a systematic literature review with a framework synthesis aimed to adapt the conceptual framework for environmental scanning to a collaborative context. Our specific objectives were to identify the factors and outcomes of collaborative information seeking (CIS) and use them to propose an adapted conceptual framework. Fifty-one empirical studies were included and synthesized using a hybrid thematic synthesis. The adapted framework includes seven types of influencing factors and five types of outcomes. Our review contributes to the theoretical expansion of knowledge on CIS in general and provides a conceptual framework to study collaboration in keeping up to date. Overall, our findings will be useful to researchers, practitioners, team leaders, and system designers implementing and evaluating collaborative information projects.

0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 2404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=2404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=331,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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

0.0129712615 = product of:
  0.051885046 = sum of:
    0.051885046 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051885046 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = 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.

0.010809385 = product of:
  0.04323754 = sum of:
    0.04323754 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04323754 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2235069 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06382575 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:55:52