Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=299,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.013483594 = product of:
  0.026967188 = sum of:
    0.026967188 = product of:
      0.053934377 = sum of:
        0.053934377 = weight(_text_:e.g in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053934377 = score(doc=643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.23055404 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) is a research area both within Computer Science and Information Science. It has by and large two communities: a Computer Science oriented experimental approach and a user-oriented Information Science approach with a Social Science background. The communities hold a critical stance towards each other (e.g., Ingwersen, 1996), the latter suspecting the realism of the former, and the former suspecting the usefulness of the latter. Within Information Science the study of information seeking (IS) also has a Social Science background. There is a lot of research in each of these particular areas of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R). However, the three communities do not really communicate with each other. Why is this, and could the relationships be otherwise? Do the communities in fact belong together? Or perhaps each community is better off forgetting about the existence of the other two? We feel that the relationships between the research areas have not been properly analyzed. One way to analyze the relationships is to examine what each research area is trying to find out: which phenomena are being explained and how. We believe that IS&R research would benefit from being analytic about its frameworks, models and theories, not just at the level of meta-theories, but also much more concretely at the level of study designs. Over the years there have been calls for more context in the study of IS&R. Work tasks as well as cultural activities/interests have been proposed as the proper context for information access. For example, Wersig (1973) conceptualized information needs from the tasks perspective. He argued that in order to learn about information needs and seeking, one needs to take into account the whole active professional role of the individuals being investigated. Byström and Järvelin (1995) analysed IS processes in the light of tasks of varying complexity. Ingwersen (1996) discussed the role of tasks and their descriptions and problematic situations from a cognitive perspective on IR. Most recently, Vakkari (2003) reviewed task-based IR and Järvelin and Ingwersen (2004) proposed the extension of IS&R research toward the task context. Therefore there is much support to the task context, but how should it be applied in IS&R?

0.013483594 = product of:
  0.026967188 = sum of:
    0.026967188 = product of:
      0.053934377 = sum of:
        0.053934377 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053934377 = score(doc=1797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.23055404 = fieldWeight in 1797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Findings - The results indicate that both WikiMap and WNavis supported users to identify concepts and their relations better compared to the baseline. In topical tasks WNavis over performed both WikiMap and the baseline system. Although there were no time differences in finding concepts or answering topical questions, the test systems provided users with a greater gain per time unit. The users of WNavis leaned on the hierarchy tree instead of other tools, whereas WikiMap users used the topic map. Research limitations/implications - The findings have implications for the design of IR support tools in knowledge-intensive web sites that help users to explore topics and concepts. Originality/value - The authors explored to what extent the use of each IV support tool contributed to successful exploration of topics in search tasks. The authors propose extended task-based evaluation measures to understand how each application provides useful context for users to accomplish the tasks and attain the search goals. That is, the authors not only evaluate the output of the search results, e.g. the number of relevant items retrieved, but also the outcome provided by the system for assisting users to attain the search goal.

0.010740024 = product of:
  0.021480048 = sum of:
    0.021480048 = product of:
      0.042960096 = sum of:
        0.042960096 = weight(_text_:22 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042960096 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article focuses an analysing students' information needs in terms of conceptual understanding of the topic they propose to study and its consequences for the search process and outcome. The research subjects were 22 undergraduates of psychology attending a seminar for preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. They were asked to make searches in the PsycINFO database for their task in the beginning and end of the seminar. A pre- and postsearch interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded, as were the transaction logs. The results show that during the preparation of research proposals different features of the students' conceptual structure were connected to the search success. Students' ability to cover their conceptual construct by query terms was the major feature affecting search success during the whole process. In the beginning also the number of concepts and the proportion of subconcepts in the construct contributed indirectly via search tactics to retrieving partly useful references. Students' ability to extract new query terms from retrieved items improved search results.

Date

19. 6.2003 17:22:33

0.0075943437 = product of:
  0.0151886875 = sum of:
    0.0151886875 = product of:
      0.030377375 = sum of:
        0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030377375 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1073, 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=1073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study analyses how students' growing understanding of the topic and search experience were related to their choice of search tactics and terms while preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. In addition to that, the findings of the study are used to test Vakkari's (2001) theory of task-based IR. The research subjects were 22 students of psychology attending a seminar for preparing the proposal. They made a search for their task in PsychINFO database at the beginning and end of the seminar. Data were collected in several ways. A pre- and post-search interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded as were the transaction logs. The results show that search experience was slightly related to the change of facets. Although the students' vocabulary of the topic grew generating an increased use of specific terms between the sessions, their use of search tactics and operators remained fairly constant. There was no correlation between the terms and tactics used and the total number of useful references found. By comparing these results with the findings of relevant earlier studies the conclusion was drawn that domain knowledge has an impact on searching assuming that users have a sufficient command of the system used. This implies that the tested theory of task-based IR is valid on condition that the searchers are experienced. It is suggested that the theory should be enriched by including search experience in its scope.

0.0075943437 = product of:
  0.0151886875 = sum of:
    0.0151886875 = product of:
      0.030377375 = sum of:
        0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030377375 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = 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

0.0075943437 = product of:
  0.0151886875 = sum of:
    0.0151886875 = product of:
      0.030377375 = sum of:
        0.030377375 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030377375 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06