Search (30 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0015199365 = product of:
  0.003039873 = sum of:
    0.003039873 = product of:
      0.006079746 = sum of:
        0.006079746 = weight(_text_:a in 3546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006079746 = score(doc=3546,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3546, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare (1) the semantic structures in lay persons' questions addressed to ask-an-expert service in the fields of health, nutrition and social services, and (2) to which extent lay persons' vocabularies are covered by a general thesaurus and a specific thesaurus in each of these fields. As representation of information needs 50 questions were selected concerning both health and nutrition, and 163 concerning social services. The concepts and their expressions in the questions were identified, and their semantic relations were observed and classified into equivalence, hierarchical and associative relations. The semantic structure of questions varied somewhat between the fields observed. Lay persons' expressions were covered most extensively in health, and least extensively in social services. Specific thesaurus covered more extensively expressions in health (65%) than general thesaurus (42%), whereas in nutrition there was no difference (33% vs. 32%), and in social services general thesaurus (21%) covered expressions somewhat better compared to specific thesaurus (15%). In terms of matching both specific and general thesaurus would provide searchers with reasonable support in term selection for query construction in health, but with limited assistance in nutrition and social services.

Type

a

0.0015199365 = product of:
  0.003039873 = sum of:
    0.003039873 = product of:
      0.006079746 = sum of:
        0.006079746 = weight(_text_:a in 3789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006079746 = score(doc=3789,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3789, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We examined the search behaviors of diverse fiction readers in different search scenarios. The aim was to understand how fiction readers with varied reading preferences are selecting interesting novels in library catalogs. We conducted a controlled user study with 80 participants. Two reader groups were elicited according to similar reading preference patterns. The readers enjoyed the entertainment, escape, and comfort that reading as a pleasurable activity offered. The aesthetic readers valued the artistic and aesthetic pleasures, widening vocabulary, and ability to express oneself through fiction books. We compared the search queries and search actions between the 2 reader groups. Our results demonstrated that preference patterns were associated with readers' search behavior, that is, the number of viewed search result pages, opened book pages, dwell time on book pages, and the type of search queries. Based on the findings, we present 3 search tactics for fiction books in library catalogs: i) focused querying, ii) topical browsing, and iii) similarity-based tactic. The most popular search tactic in each search scenario was "focused querying" with known author in both reader groups.

Type

a

0.0015199365 = product of:
  0.003039873 = sum of:
    0.003039873 = product of:
      0.006079746 = sum of:
        0.006079746 = weight(_text_:a in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006079746 = score(doc=767,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study analyses contributions to Library and Information Science (LIS) by researchers representing various disciplines. How are such contributions associated with the choice of research topics and methodology? The study employs a quantitative content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 2015. Each article is seen as a contribution to LIS by the authors' disciplines, which are inferred from their affiliations. The unit of analysis is the article-discipline pair. Of the contribution instances, the share of LIS is one third. Computer Science contributes one fifth and Business and Economics one sixth. The latter disciplines dominate the contributions in information retrieval, information seeking, and scientific communication indicating strong influences in LIS. Correspondence analysis reveals three clusters of research, one focusing on traditional LIS with contributions from LIS and Humanities and survey-type research; another on information retrieval with contributions from Computer Science and experimental research; and the third on scientific communication with contributions from Natural Sciences and Medicine and citation analytic research. The strong differentiation of scholarly contributions in LIS hints to the fragmentation of LIS as a discipline.

Type

a

0.0014892276 = product of:
  0.0029784553 = sum of:
    0.0029784553 = product of:
      0.0059569106 = sum of:
        0.0059569106 = weight(_text_:a in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0059569106 = score(doc=1891,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this study is to explore to which extent searching by medical students in Medline produces information items useful for writing an essay measured by precision and relative recall as perceived by the students, the proportion of cited items, and their utilization on four dimensions of the essay writing task evaluated by external assessors. It also aims to study interrelations of search process and outcome. Design/methodology/approach - The study subjects were 42 third year medical students attending a class on Diagnostic and therapy. Searching in Medline was a part of their assignment of essay writing. The data consist of students' printed logs of Medline searches, students' assessments of the usefulness of the references retrieved, a questionnaire concerning the search process, and evaluation scores of the essays given by the teachers of the class. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for answering the research questions. Findings - The paper finds that precision and relative recall were not associated with evaluation scores in three of the four dimensions assessed. Some of the process variables were associated with precision and with assessment scores in two of the four dimensions assessed. Citing rate was negatively associated with recall. It seems that precision and recall are only weakly, if at all, associated to the use of information in the documents retrieved for writing the essay. Precision and relative recall are not associated to the way information in the retrieved items is used for performing the task. Users evidently look for a sufficient number of documents containing enough information for progressing in their task. Precision and recall are not sufficient measures in evaluating IR systems, but they have to be completed by other measures indicating the impact of the system on users' task performance. Originality/value - The paper provides useful information on students' information search process.

Type

a

0.0013163039 = product of:
  0.0026326077 = sum of:
    0.0026326077 = product of:
      0.0052652154 = sum of:
        0.0052652154 = weight(_text_:a in 3328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0052652154 = score(doc=3328,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3328, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This small-scale empirical study focuses an students' anticipated and assessed contribution of references retrieved during the preparation of research proposals. It explores how the expected contribution of types of information before searches differs from the assessed contribution of relevant references found by the types of information. Twenty-two psychology undergraduates searched the PsychINFO database for references at the initial and end stages of a seminar for preparing proposals. Data about their subject knowledge, search goals, and utility assessments were collected using several methods. They were asked to predict and assess the utility of information types provided by relevant references for the proposals. At the beginning of the process, they found fewer general types of information and more specific types of information than they expected. However, the students tended to accept references according to their expectations. By the end of the process, the expected importance of general information types declined and the importance of specific information types increased. At the end of the task, students became more proficient at recognizing the utility and topicality of references. They also became more critical in accepting found information to match their expectations.

Type

a

0.001289709 = product of:
  0.002579418 = sum of:
    0.002579418 = product of:
      0.005158836 = sum of:
        0.005158836 = weight(_text_:a in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005158836 = score(doc=4288,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The rationale for using information systems is to find information that helps us in our daily activities, be they tasks or interests. Systems are expected to support us in searching for and identifying useful information. Although the activities and tasks performed by humans generate information needs and searching, they have attracted little attention in studies of information searching. Such studies have concentrated an search tasks rather than the activities that trigger them. It is obvious that our understanding of information searching is only partial, if we are not able to connect aspects of searching to the related task. The expected contribution of information to the task is reflected in relevance assessments of the information items found, and in the search tactics and use of the system in general. Taking the task into account seems to be a necessary condition for understanding and explaining information searching, and, by extension, for effective systems design.

Type

a

0.001289709 = product of:
  0.002579418 = sum of:
    0.002579418 = product of:
      0.005158836 = sum of:
        0.005158836 = weight(_text_:a in 4435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005158836 = score(doc=4435,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4435, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4435)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001289709 = product of:
  0.002579418 = sum of:
    0.002579418 = product of:
      0.005158836 = sum of:
        0.005158836 = weight(_text_:a in 1380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005158836 = score(doc=1380,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1380, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1380)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study explores how the use of electronic information resources has influenced scholars' opinion of their work, and how this is connected to their publication productivity. The data consist of a nationwide Web-based survey of the end-users of FinELib, the Finnish Electronic Library, at all universities in Finland. Scholars feel that the use of electronic literature has improved their work considerably in several ways. This influence can be differentiated into two dimensions. The first one is improved accessibility and availability of literature, and the second is more directly related to the content and quality of scholarly work. The perceived improved access is positively associated with the number of international publications produced, among doctoral students in particular. The more direct influence of e-resource use on the content of scholarly work is, however, not associated with publication productivity. The results seem to imply that investments in academic digital libraries are beneficial for the researchers and for the universities.

Type

a

0.0010747575 = product of:
  0.002149515 = sum of:
    0.002149515 = product of:
      0.00429903 = sum of:
        0.00429903 = weight(_text_:a in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00429903 = score(doc=1309,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.

Type

a

0.0010747575 = product of:
  0.002149515 = sum of:
    0.002149515 = product of:
      0.00429903 = sum of:
        0.00429903 = weight(_text_:a in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00429903 = score(doc=949,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

Type

a