Search (588 results, page 2 of 30)

0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1333, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1333)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=1333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1333, 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=1333)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=1257,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1257, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1257)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1257, 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=1257)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In conjunction with the American Society for Information Science and Technology's (ASIST) annual meeting in fall 2001, the Special Interest Group an Information Needs, Seeking, and Use (SIG USE) sponsored a research symposium an "Effective Methods for Studying Information Seeking and Use." The symposium was intended to address the SIG's goal of promoting studies of human information behavior by focusing an the research methods that can most effectively be used to study information needs, information seeking, information use, and other human information behaviors. The symposium included the presentation of six refereed articles, which were revised based an the discussion at the symposium and are included here. The six articles describe the application of a variety of research methods, singly or in combination. Some of the methods are most appropriate for studying individuals and their interactions with information, while others can be applied to studying group behaviors. The studies were conducted in a variety of settings, from a Web-searching laboratory to an archive, from hospitals to the great outdoors (i.e., forest and river sites). Each method or set of methods was applied to a particular user group, including young children, teenagers, and adults. Each article makes a unique contribution to our repertoire of research methods, as briefly reviewed here.

Date

20. 1.2003 9:37:22

Type

a

0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=56,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

Type

a

0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=4193,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4193, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4193)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4193, 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=4193)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The development of visual retrieval methods requires information about user interaction with images, including their description and categorization. This article presents the development of a categorization model for magazine images based on two user studies. In Study 1, we elicited 10 main classes of magazine image categorization criteria through sorting tasks with nonexpert and expert users (N=30). Multivariate methods, namely, multidimensional scaling and hierarchical clustering, were used to analyze similarity data. Content analysis of category names gave rise to classes that were synthesized into a categorization framework. The framework was evaluated in Study 2 by experts (N=24) who categorized another set of images consistent with the framework and found it to be useful in the task. Based on the evaluation study the framework was solidified into a model for categorizing magazine imagery. Connections between classes were analyzed both from the original sorting data and from the evaluation study and included into the final model. The model is a practical categorization tool that may be used in workplaces, such as magazine editorial offices. It may also serve to guide the development of computational methods for image understanding, selection of concepts for automatic detection, and approaches to support browsing and exploratory image search.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:09:26

Type

a

0.018982807 = product of:
  0.037965614 = sum of:
    0.037965614 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=297,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In information needs, seeking and use (INSU) research, individuals have most commonly been perceived as users (e.g., Kuhlthau, 1991; Dervin & Nilan, 1986; Dervin, 1989; Belkin, 1980). The concept user originates from the user of libraries and other information services and information systems. Over the years the scope of the concept has become wider and it is nowadays often understood in the sense of seekers of information (e.g., Wilson, 1981; Marchionini, 1995) and users of information (e.g., Streatfield, 1983). Nevertheless, the concept has remained ambiguous by being on the one hand universal and on the other hand extremely specific. The purpose of this paper is to map and evaluate views on people whose information behaviour has been in one way or another the core of our research area. The goal is to shed some light on various relationships between the different aspects of doers in INSU studies. The paper is inspired by Dervin's (1997) analysis of context where she identified among other themes the nature of subject by contrasting a `transcendental individual' with a `decentered subject', and Talja's (1997) presentation about constituting `information' and `user' from the discourse analytic viewpoint as opposed to the cognitive viewpoint. Instead of the metatheoretical approach applied by Dervin and Talja, a more concrete approach is valid in the present analysis where no direct arguments for or against the underlying metatheories are itemised. The focus is on doers in INSU studies leaving other, even closely-related concepts (i.e., information, information seeking, knowledge etc.), outside the scope of the paper.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:55:52

Type

a

0.018982807 = product of:
  0.037965614 = sum of:
    0.037965614 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=1003,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.

Type

a

0.018982807 = product of:
  0.037965614 = sum of:
    0.037965614 = sum of:
      0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006765375 = score(doc=2637,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a qualitative research study that examined professional image users' knowledge of, and interest in using, content-based image retrieval (CBIR) systems in an attempt to clarify when and where CBIR methods might be applied. The research sought to determine the differences in the perceived usefulness of CBIR technologies among image user groups from several domains and explicate the reasons given regarding the utility of CBIR systems for their professional tasks. Twenty participants (archaeologists, architects, art historians, and artists), individuals who rely on images of cultural materials in the performance of their work, took part in the study. The findings of the study reveal that interest in CBIR methods varied among the different professional user communities. Individuals who showed an interest in these systems were primarily those concerned with the formal characteristics (i.e., color, shape, composition, and texture) of the images being sought. In contrast, those participants who expressed a strong interest in images of known items, images illustrating themes, and/or items from specific locations believe concept-based searches to be the most direct route. These image users did not see a practical application for CBIR systems in their current work routines.

Date

22. 1.2016 12:32:25

Type

a

0.018529613 = product of:
  0.037059225 = sum of:
    0.037059225 = sum of:
      0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005858987 = score(doc=2117,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, 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=2117)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents an application of the model described in Part I to the evaluation of Web search engines by undergraduates. The study observed how 36 undergraduate used four major search engines to find information for their own individual problems and how they evaluated these engines based an actual interaction with the search engines. User evaluation was based an 16 performance measures representing five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Non-performance (user-related) measures were also applied. Each participant searched his/ her own topic an all four engines and provided satisfaction ratings for system features and interaction and reasons for satisfaction. Each also made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her own information need and participated in post-search Interviews to provide reactions to the search results and overall performance. The study found significant differences in precision PR1 relative recall, user satisfaction with output display, time saving, value of search results, and overall performance among the four engines and also significant engine by discipline interactions an all these measures. In addition, the study found significant differences in user satisfaction with response time among four engines, and significant engine by discipline interaction in user satisfaction with search interface. None of the four search engines dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Content analysis of verbal data identified a number of user criteria and users evaluative comments based an these criteria. Results from both quantitative analysis and content analysis provide insight for system design and development, and useful feedback an strengths and weaknesses of search engines for system improvement

Date

24. 1.2004 18:27:22

Type

a

0.018529613 = product of:
  0.037059225 = sum of:
    0.037059225 = sum of:
      0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 6117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005858987 = score(doc=6117,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 6117, 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=6117)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 6117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=6117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 6117, 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=6117)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Several previous studies have measured differences in the information search success of novices and experts. However, the definitions of novices and experts have varied greatly between the studies, and so have the measures used for search success. Instead of dividing the searchers into different groups based on their expertise, we chose to model search success with task completion speed, TCS. Towards this goal, 22 participants performed three fact-finding tasks and two broader tasks in an observational user study. In our model, there were two variables related to the Web experience of the participants. Other variables included, for example, the speed of query iteration, the length of the queries, the proportion of precise queries, and the speed of evaluating result documents. Our results showed that the variables related to Web experience had expected effects on TCS. The increase in the years of Web use was related to improvement in TCS in the broader tasks, whereas the less frequent Web use was related to a decrease in TCS in the fact-finding tasks. Other variables having significant effects on TCS in either of the task types were the speed of composing queries, the average number of query terms per query, the proportion of precise queries, and the participants' own evaluation of their search skills. In addition to the statistical models, we present several qualitative findings of the participants' search strategies. These results give valuable insight into the successful strategies in Web search beyond the previous knowledge of the expert-novice differences.

Type

a

0.017992042 = product of:
  0.035984084 = sum of:
    0.035984084 = sum of:
      0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047838427 = score(doc=2339,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Type

a

0.017992042 = product of:
  0.035984084 = sum of:
    0.035984084 = sum of:
      0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047838427 = score(doc=2680,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25. 1.2016 18:46:22

Type

a

0.016059995 = product of:
  0.03211999 = sum of:
    0.03211999 = sum of:
      0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0071598003 = score(doc=296,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous empirical studies of searcher behaviour have drawn attention to a wide variety of factors that affect performance; for instance, the display of retrieved results can alter search strategies (Allen 1991, 1994), the information need type influences search behaviour, (Elkerton et al 1984, Marchionini 1995); while the task complexity, reflected in the information need can affect user's search behaviour (Large et al 1994). Furthermore, information source selection (Bassilli 1977), and the user's model of the system and domain impact on the search process (Michel 1994); while motivation (Solomon 1993, Jacobsen et al 1992) and the importance of the information need (Wendt 1969) also influence search duration and the effort a user will employ. Rouse and Rouse (1984) in a review of empirical studies, summarise a wide variety of variables that can effect searching behaviour, including payoff, costs of searching, resource available, amount of information sought, characteristics of the data and conflicts between documents. It appears that user behaviour is inconsistent in the search strategies adopted even for the same search need and system (Davidson 1977, Iivonen 1995). Theories of searcher behaviour have been proposed that provide explanations of aspects of end-user behaviour, such as the evolution of the user's information need and the problems of articulating a query, [Bates (1979, 1989), Markey and Atherton 1978], effective search strategies in browsing and goal directed searches [Marchionini 1995, Belkin (1987, 1993)], the linguistic problem of matching search terms with indexing terms or content of target documents through an expert intermediary (Ingwersen 1982) or cognitive aspects of IR (Kulthau 1984, Ingwersen 1996).

Date

22. 3.2002 9:54:13

Type

a

0.015505663 = product of:
  0.031011326 = sum of:
    0.031011326 = sum of:
      0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0060511357 = score(doc=286,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper highlights some of the significant findings from author's PhD: "Factors affecting the end-use of electronic databases in public libraries." Public libraries have a wide range of different types of users who, unlike academic or special library users, are not necessarily information-trained (see Coles, 1998). Whereas the academic, special library user may have specific information needs that can be met by electronic sources, public library users do not necessarily have such specific information needs that can easily be identified and met. Most user surveys have tended to concentrate on the searching and retrieval aspect of information seeking behaviour, whereas this study's user survey focused more on how people perceived and related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). It was not how people searched a particular electronic source, in this case CD-ROM, that was of prime interest but rather whether or not people actually used them at all and the reasons why people did or did not use electronic media. There were several reasons the study looked at CD-ROM specifically. Firstly, CD-ROM is a well established technology, most people should be familiar with CD-ROM/multimedia. Secondly, CD-ROM was, at the start of the study, the only open access electronic media widely available in public libraries. As well as examining why public library users chose to use electronic sources, the paper looks at the types of CD-ROM databases used both in the library and in general Also examined are what sort of searches users carried out. Where appropriate some of the problems inherent in studying end-users in public libraries and the difficulty in getting reliable data, are discussed. Several methods were used to collect the data. I wished to avoid limiting research to a small sample of library sites, the aim was to be as broad in scope as possible. There were two main groups of people 1 wished to look at: non-users as well as CD-ROM users

Date

22. 3.2002 8:51:28

Type

a

0.015505663 = product of:
  0.031011326 = sum of:
    0.031011326 = sum of:
      0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0060511357 = score(doc=4440,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to get a first approximation of the usefulness of online forums with regard to information seeking and knowledge generation. Design/methodology/approach - This study captures the characteristics of knowledge generation by examining the pragmatics and types of information needs of posted questions and by investigating knowledge related characteristics of discussion posts as well as the success of communication. Three online forums were examined. The data set consists of 55 threads, containing 533 posts which were categorized manually by two researchers. Findings - Results show that questioners often ask for personal estimations. Information needs often aim for actionable insights or uncertainty reduction. With regard to answers, factual information is the dominant content type and has the highest knowledge value as it is the strongest predictor with regard to the generation of new knowledge. Opinions are also relevant, but in a rather subsequent and complementary way. Emotional aspects are scarcely observed. Overall, results indicate that knowledge creation predominantly follows a socio-cultural paradigm of knowledge exchange. Research limitations/implications - Although the investigation captures important aspects of knowledge building processes, the measurement of the forums' knowledge value is still rather limited. Success is only partly measurable with the current scheme. The central coding category "new topical knowledge" is only of nominal value and therefore not able to compare different kinds of knowledge gains in the course of discussion. Originality/value - The investigation reaches out beyond studies that do not consider that the role and relevance of posts is dependent on the state of the discussion. Furthermore, the paper integrates two perspectives of knowledge value: the success of the questioner with regard to the expressed information need and the knowledge building value for communicants and readers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Type

a

0.014393632 = product of:
  0.028787265 = sum of:
    0.028787265 = sum of:
      0.003827074 = weight(_text_:a in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003827074 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

ADEPT is a 5-year project whose goals are to develop, deploy, and evaluate inquiry learning capabilities for the Alexandria Digital Library, an extant digital library of primary sources in geography. We interviewed nine geography faculty members who teach undergraduate courses about their information seeking for research and teaching and their use of information resources in teaching. These data were supplemented by interviews with four faculty members from another ADEPT study about the nature of knowledge in geography. Among our key findings are that geography faculty are more likely to encounter useful teaching resources while seeking research resources than vice versa, although the influence goes in both directions. Their greatest information needs are for research data, maps, and images. They desire better searching by concept or theme, in addition to searching by location and place name. They make extensive use of their own research resources in their teaching. Among the implications for functionality and architecture of geographic digital libraries for educational use are that personal digital libraries are essential, because individual faculty members have personalized approaches to selecting, collecting, and organizing teaching resources. Digital library services for research and teaching should include the ability to import content from common office software and to store content in standard formats that can be exported to other applications. Digital library services can facilitate sharing among faculty but cannot overcome barriers such as intellectual property rights, access to proprietary research data, or the desire of individuals to maintain control over their own resources. Faculty use of primary and secondary resources needs to be better understood if we are to design successful digital libraries for research and teaching.

Date

3. 6.2005 20:40:22

Type

a

0.0046871896 = product of:
  0.009374379 = sum of:
    0.009374379 = product of:
      0.018748758 = sum of:
        0.018748758 = weight(_text_:a in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018748758 = score(doc=4476,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3530471 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Jain, A.K. u. L.C. De Weese: A statistical study of book use

Type

a

0.004101291 = product of:
  0.008202582 = sum of:
    0.008202582 = product of:
      0.016405163 = sum of:
        0.016405163 = weight(_text_:a in 7677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016405163 = score(doc=7677,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 7677, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.004101291 = product of:
  0.008202582 = sum of:
    0.008202582 = product of:
      0.016405163 = sum of:
        0.016405163 = weight(_text_:a in 3898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016405163 = score(doc=3898,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 3898, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=4487,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=4488,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a