Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01775662 = product of:
  0.03551324 = sum of:
    0.03551324 = product of:
      0.07102648 = sum of:
        0.07102648 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07102648 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, 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=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.22-25

0.010597459 = product of:
  0.021194918 = sum of:
    0.021194918 = product of:
      0.042389836 = sum of:
        0.042389836 = weight(_text_:2 in 3258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042389836 = score(doc=3258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.32742465 = fieldWeight in 3258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010597459 = product of:
  0.021194918 = sum of:
    0.021194918 = product of:
      0.042389836 = sum of:
        0.042389836 = weight(_text_:2 in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042389836 = score(doc=411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.32742465 = fieldWeight in 411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.2, S.207-227

0.008831216 = product of:
  0.017662432 = sum of:
    0.017662432 = product of:
      0.035324864 = sum of:
        0.035324864 = weight(_text_:2 in 4325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035324864 = score(doc=4325,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.27285388 = fieldWeight in 4325, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: The 50th Anniversary of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Pt.2: Paradigms, models, and models of information science

0.0074935355 = product of:
  0.014987071 = sum of:
    0.014987071 = product of:
      0.029974142 = sum of:
        0.029974142 = weight(_text_:2 in 4080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029974142 = score(doc=4080,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2315242 = fieldWeight in 4080, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information seeking and provision does not occur in a vacuum, but is shaped and affected by the way that individuals convey regard for themselves and for each other. Reports 2 studies that explore the intersection between professional and personal or relational dimensions of intermediary practice during the research phase of a set of online computer search interactions that aim to address user information queries. The 1st study examines and compares, through an interpretative microanalytic approach, explicit and implicit situation defining assumptions contained in the initial talk, or opening moves, of 4 intermediaries in interaction with 2 users each. The 2nd study seeks to verify, quantitatively, interpretative claims developed in the 1st study through an analysis of intermediaries' use of pronouns in the course of their interactions with users. The specific patterns of results gained through this quantitiative study were consistent with those achieved interpretatively in the 1st study. The results of these studies are discussed within a proposed theoretic framework developed from the perspective of a constitutive theory of communication

0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discusses underlying concepts related to value that must be clarified in order to proceed with any pragmatic study of value, and establishes a theory of use-oriented value of information and information services. Examines the notion of value in philosophy and economics and in relation to library and information services as well as the connection between value and relevance. Develops 2 models: one related to use of information and the other to use of library and information services. They are a theoretical framework for pragmatic study of value and a guide for the development of a Derived Taxonomy of Value in Using Library and Information Services

0.0052987295 = product of:
  0.010597459 = sum of:
    0.010597459 = product of:
      0.021194918 = sum of:
        0.021194918 = weight(_text_:2 in 1963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021194918 = score(doc=1963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.16371232 = fieldWeight in 1963, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The objectives of the study were to conduct a series of observations and experiments under as real-life a situation as possible related to: (i) user context of questions in information retrieval; (ii) the structure and classification of questions; (iii) cognitive traits and decision making of searchers; and (iv) different searches of the same question. The study is presented in three parts: part 1 presents the background of the study and describes the models, measures, methods, procedures and statistical analyses used. Pt.2 is devoted to results related to users, questions, and effectiveness measures, and pt.3 to results related to searchers, searches, and overlap studies. A concluding summary of all results is presented in pt.3

0.00499569 = product of:
  0.00999138 = sum of:
    0.00999138 = product of:
      0.01998276 = sum of:
        0.01998276 = weight(_text_:2 in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01998276 = score(doc=6980,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.15434946 = fieldWeight in 6980, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6980)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In previous articles, we reported the state of Web searching in 1997 (Jansen, Spink, & Saracevic, 2000) and in 1999 (Spink, Wolfram, Jansen, & Saracevic, 2001). Such snapshot studies and statistics on Web use appear regularly (OCLC, 1999), but provide little information about Web searching trends. In this article, we compare and contrast results from our two previous studies of Excite queries' data sets, each containing over 1 million queries submitted by over 200,000 Excite users collected on 16 September 1997 and 20 December 1999. We examine how public Web searching changing during that 2-year time period. As Table 1 shows, the overall structure of Web queries in some areas did not change, while in others we see change from 1997 to 1999. Our comparison shows how Web searching changed incrementally and also dramatically. We see some moves toward greater simplicity, including shorter queries (i.e., fewer terms) and shorter sessions (i.e., fewer queries per user), with little modification (addition or deletion) of terms in subsequent queries. The trend toward shorter queries suggests that Web information content should target specific terms in order to reach Web users. Another trend was to view fewer pages of results per query. Most Excite users examined only one page of results per query, since an Excite results page contains ten ranked Web sites. Were users satisfied with the results and did not need to view more pages? It appears that the public continues to have a low tolerance of wading through retrieved sites. This decline in interactivity levels is a disturbing finding for the future of Web searching. Queries that included Boolean operators were in the minority, but the percentage increased between the two time periods. Most Boolean use involved the AND operator with many mistakes. The use of relevance feedback almost doubled from 1997 to 1999, but overall use was still small. An unusually large number of terms were used with low frequency, such as personal names, spelling errors, non-English words, and Web-specific terms, such as URLs. Web query vocabulary contains more words than found in large English texts in general. The public language of Web queries has its own and unique characteristics. How did Web searching topics change from 1997 to 1999? We classified a random sample of 2,414 queries from 1997 and 2,539 queries from 1999 into 11 categories (Table 2). From 1997 to 1999, Web searching shifted from entertainment, recreation and sex, and pornography, preferences to e-commerce-related topics under commerce, travel, employment, and economy. This shift coincided with changes in information distribution on the publicly indexed Web.

0.004415608 = product of:
  0.008831216 = sum of:
    0.008831216 = product of:
      0.017662432 = sum of:
        0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017662432 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users' or user surrogates' assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems-inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster's (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.