Search (38 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Järvelin, K."
  1. Vakkari, P.; Chang, Y.-W.; Järvelin, K.: Disciplinary contributions to research topics and methodology in Library and Information Science : leading to fragmentation? (2022) 0.02
    0.020929301 = product of:
      0.05581147 = sum of:
        0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029519552 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
        0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0167351 = score(doc=767,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=767,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.12, S.1706-1722
  2. Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: LIS research across 50 years: content analysis of journal articles : offering an information-centric conception of memes (2022) 0.02
    0.01895377 = product of:
      0.050543386 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
        0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02011309 = score(doc=949,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=949,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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).
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 78(2022) no.7, S.65-88
  3. Kumpulainen, S.; Järvelin, K.: Barriers to task-based information access in molecular medicine (2012) 0.02
    0.018774418 = product of:
      0.050065115 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 4965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=4965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 4965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4965)
        0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 4965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02087234 = score(doc=4965,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4965, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4965)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 4965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=4965,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 4965, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4965)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    We analyze barriers to task-based information access in molecular medicine, focusing on research tasks, which provide task performance sessions of varying complexity. Molecular medicine is a relevant domain because it offers thousands of digital resources as the information environment. Data were collected through shadowing of real work tasks. Thirty work task sessions were analyzed and barriers in these identified. The barriers were classified by their character (conceptual, syntactic, and technological) and by their context of appearance (work task, system integration, or system). Also, work task sessions were grouped into three complexity classes and the frequency of barriers of varying types across task complexity levels were analyzed. Our findings indicate that although most of the barriers are on system level, there is a quantum of barriers in integration and work task contexts. These barriers might be overcome through attention to the integrated use of multiple systems at least for the most frequent uses. This can be done by means of standardization and harmonization of the data and by taking the requirements of the work tasks into account in system design and development, because information access is seldom an end itself, but rather serves to reach the goals of work tasks.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.86-97
  4. Hansen, P.; Järvelin, K.: Collaborative Information Retrieval in an information-intensive domain (2005) 0.02
    0.017705511 = product of:
      0.070822045 = sum of:
        0.06135524 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06135524 = score(doc=1040,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 1040, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1040)
        0.009466803 = weight(_text_:of in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009466803 = score(doc=1040,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 1040, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1040)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    In this article we investigate the expressions of collaborative activities within information seeking and retrieval processes (IS&R). Generally, information seeking and retrieval is regarded as an individual and isolated process in IR research. We assume that an IS&R situation is not merely an individual effort, but inherently involves various collaborative activities. We present empirical results from a real-life and information-intensive setting within the patent domain, showing that the patent task performance process involves highly collaborative aspects throughout the stages of the information seeking and retrieval process. Furthermore, we show that these activities may be categorised and related to different stages in an information seeking and retrieval process. Therefore, the assumption that information retrieval performance is purely individual needs to be reconsidered. Finally, we also propose a refined IR framework involving collaborative aspects.
  5. Kettunen, K.; Kunttu, T.; Järvelin, K.: To stem or lemmatize a highly inflectional language in a probabilistic IR environment? (2005) 0.02
    0.017439075 = product of:
      0.0465042 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
        0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02011309 = score(doc=4395,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - To show that stem generation compares well with lemmatization as a morphological tool for a highly inflectional language for IR purposes in a best-match retrieval system. Design/methodology/approach - Effects of three different morphological methods - lemmatization, stemming and stem production - for Finnish are compared in a probabilistic IR environment (INQUERY). Evaluation is done using a four-point relevance scale which is partitioned differently in different test settings. Findings - Results show that stem production, a lighter method than morphological lemmatization, compares well with lemmatization in a best-match IR environment. Differences in performance between stem production and lemmatization are small and they are not statistically significant in most of the tested settings. It is also shown that hitherto a rather neglected method of morphological processing for Finnish, stemming, performs reasonably well although the stemmer used - a Porter stemmer implementation - is far from optimal for a morphologically complex language like Finnish. In another series of tests, the effects of compound splitting and derivational expansion of queries are tested. Practical implications - Usefulness of morphological lemmatization and stem generation for IR purposes can be estimated with many factors. On the average P-R level they seem to behave very close to each other in a probabilistic IR system. Thus, the choice of the used method with highly inflectional languages needs to be estimated along other dimensions too. Originality/value - Results are achieved using Finnish as an example of a highly inflectional language. The results are of interest for anyone who is interested in processing of morphological variation of a highly inflected language for IR purposes.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.4, S.476-496
  6. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.02
    0.016656106 = product of:
      0.044416282 = sum of:
        0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02087234 = score(doc=998,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
        0.00955682 = product of:
          0.01911364 = sum of:
            0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01911364 = score(doc=998,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827
  7. Pirkola, A.; Puolamäki, D.; Järvelin, K.: Applying query structuring in cross-language retrieval (2003) 0.02
    0.016623331 = product of:
      0.066493325 = sum of:
        0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050096344 = score(doc=1074,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1074, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1074)
        0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016396983 = score(doc=1074,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 1074, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1074)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    We will explore various ways to apply query structuring in cross-language information retrieval. In the first test, English queries were translated into Finnish using an electronic dictionary, and were run in a Finnish newspaper database of 55,000 articles. Queries were structured by combining the Finnish translation equivalents of the same English query key using the syn-operator of the InQuery retrieval system. Structured queries performed markedly better than unstructured queries. Second, the effects of compound-based structuring using a proximity operator for the translation equivalents of query language compound components were tested. The method was not useful in syn-based queries but resulted in decrease in retrieval effectiveness. Proper names are often non-identical spelling variants in different languages. This allows n-gram based translation of names not included in a dictionary. In the third test, a query structuring method where the Boolean and-operator was used to assign more weight to keys translated through n-gram matching gave good results.
  8. Pharo, N.; Järvelin, K.: ¬The SST method : a tool for analysing Web information search processes (2004) 0.01
    0.014376977 = product of:
      0.038338605 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=2533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2533)
        0.009662016 = weight(_text_:of in 2533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009662016 = score(doc=2533,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1496253 = fieldWeight in 2533, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2533)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=2533,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2533, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2533)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The article presents the search situation transition (SST) method for analysing Web information search (WIS) processes. The idea of the method is to analyse searching behaviour, the process, in detail and connect both the searchers' actions (captured in a log) and his/her intentions and goals, which log analysis never captures. On the other hand, ex post factor surveys, while popular in WIS research, cannot capture the actual search processes. The method is presented through three facets: its domain, its procedure, and its justification. The method's domain is presented in the form of a conceptual framework which maps five central categories that influence WIS processes; the searcher, the social/organisational environment, the work task, the search task, and the process itself. The method's procedure includes various techniques for data collection and analysis. The article presents examples from real WIS processes and shows how the method can be used to identify the interplay of the categories during the processes. It is shown that the method presents a new approach in information seeking and retrieval by focusing on the search process as a phenomenon and by explicating how different information seeking factors directly affect the search process.
  9. Pharo, N.; Järvelin, K.: "Irrational" searchers and IR-rational researchers (2006) 0.01
    0.0111503005 = product of:
      0.044601202 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=4922,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4922, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4922)
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 4922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=4922,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4922, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4922)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    In this article the authors look at the prescriptions advocated by Web search textbooks in the light of a selection of empirical data of real Web information search processes. They use the strategy of disjointed incrementalism, which is a theoretical foundation from decision making, to focus an how people face complex problems, and claim that such problem solving can be compared to the tasks searchers perform when interacting with the Web. The findings suggest that textbooks an Web searching should take into account that searchers only tend to take a certain number of sources into consideration, that the searchers adjust their goals and objectives during searching, and that searchers reconsider the usefulness of sources at different stages of their work tasks as well as their search tasks.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.2, S.222-232
  10. Pirkola, A.; Hedlund, T.; Keskustalo, H.; Järvelin, K.: Dictionary-based cross-language information retrieval : problems, methods, and research findings (2001) 0.01
    0.010331843 = product of:
      0.082654744 = sum of:
        0.082654744 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082654744 = score(doc=3908,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 3908, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3908)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Source
    Information retrieval. 4(2001), S.209-230
  11. Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010) 0.01
    0.009107789 = product of:
      0.036431156 = sum of:
        0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023188837 = score(doc=3593,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
        0.013242318 = product of:
          0.026484637 = sum of:
            0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026484637 = score(doc=3593,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1424-1439
  12. Toivonen, J.; Pirkola, A.; Keskustalo, H.; Visala, K.; Järvelin, K.: Translating cross-lingual spelling variants using transformation rules (2005) 0.01
    0.008628744 = product of:
      0.034514975 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=1052,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
        0.009466803 = weight(_text_:of in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009466803 = score(doc=1052,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Technical terms and proper names constitute a major problem in dictionary-based cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). However, technical terms and proper names in different languages often share the same Latin or Greek origin, being thus spelling variants of each other. In this paper we present a novel two-step fuzzy translation technique for cross-lingual spelling variants. In the first step, transformation rules are applied to source words to render them more similar to their target language equivalents. The rules are generated automatically using translation dictionaries as source data. In the second step, the intermediate forms obtained in the first step are translated into a target language using fuzzy matching. The effectiveness of the technique was evaluated empirically using five source languages and English as a target language. The two-step technique performed better, in some cases considerably better, than fuzzy matching alone. Even using the first step as such showed promising results.
  13. Järvelin, K.: Evaluation (2011) 0.01
    0.0073057166 = product of:
      0.058445733 = sum of:
        0.058445733 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058445733 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Source
    Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. Eds.: Ruthven, I. u. D. Kelly
  14. Järvelin, K.; Persson, O.: ¬The DCI index : discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation (2008) 0.01
    0.006210416 = product of:
      0.024841664 = sum of:
        0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019324033 = score(doc=2694,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=2694,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Research evaluation is increasingly popular and important among research funding bodies and science policy makers. Various indicators have been proposed to evaluate the standing of individual scientists, institutions, journals, or countries. A simple and popular one among the indicators is the h-index, the Hirsch index (Hirsch 2005), which is an indicator for lifetime achievement of a scholar. Several other indicators have been proposed to complement or balance the h-index. However, these indicators have no conception of aging. The AR-index (Jin et al. 2007) incorporates aging but divides the received citation counts by the raw age of the publication. Consequently, the decay of a publication is very steep and insensitive to disciplinary differences. In addition, we believe that a publication becomes outdated only when it is no longer cited, not because of its age. Finally, all indicators treat citations as equally material when one might reasonably think that a citation from a heavily cited publication should weigh more than a citation froma non-cited or little-cited publication.We propose a new indicator, the Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index, which devalues old citations in a smooth way. It rewards an author for receiving new citations even if the publication is old. Further, it allows weighting of the citations by the citation weight of the citing publication. DCI can be used to calculate research performance on the basis of the h-core of a scholar or any other publication data.
    Content
    Erratum in: Järvelin, K., O. Persson: The DCI-index: discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation. Erratum re. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.14, S.2350-2352.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1433-1440
  15. Järvelin, K.; Persson, O.: ¬The DCI-index : discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation (2008) 0.01
    0.006071859 = product of:
      0.024287436 = sum of:
        0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 2332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0154592255 = score(doc=2332,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2332, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2332)
        0.008828212 = product of:
          0.017656423 = sum of:
            0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 2332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017656423 = score(doc=2332,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2332, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2332)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The article by K. Järvelin & O. Persson published in JASIST 59(9), The DCI-Index: Discounted Cumulated Impact-Based Research Evaluation, (pp. 1433-1440) contains an unfortunate error in one of its formulas, Equation 3. The present paper gives the correction and an example of impact analysis based on the corrected formula.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.14, S.2350-2352
  16. Ferro, N.; Silvello, G.; Keskustalo, H.; Pirkola, A.; Järvelin, K.: ¬The twist measure for IR evaluation : taking user's effort into account (2016) 0.01
    0.0060047456 = product of:
      0.024018982 = sum of:
        0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 2771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01850135 = score(doc=2771,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2771, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2771)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 2771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=2771,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2771, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2771)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    We present a novel measure for ranking evaluation, called Twist (t). It is a measure for informational intents, which handles both binary and graded relevance. t stems from the observation that searching is currently a that searching is currently taken for granted and it is natural for users to assume that search engines are available and work well. As a consequence, users may assume the utility they have in finding relevant documents, which is the focus of traditional measures, as granted. On the contrary, they may feel uneasy when the system returns nonrelevant documents because they are then forced to do additional work to get the desired information, and this causes avoidable effort. The latter is the focus of t, which evaluates the effectiveness of a system from the point of view of the effort required to the users to retrieve the desired information. We provide a formal definition of t, a demonstration of its properties, and introduce the notion of effort/gain plots, which complement traditional utility-based measures. By means of an extensive experimental evaluation, t is shown to grasp different aspects of system performances, to not require extensive and costly assessments, and to be a robust tool for detecting differences between systems.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.620-648
  17. Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: ¬The evolution of library and information science 1965-1985 : a content analysis of journal titles (1993) 0.00
    0.002761151 = product of:
      0.022089208 = sum of:
        0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022089208 = score(doc=4649,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
  18. Kristensen, J.; Järvelin, K.: ¬The effectiveness of a searching thesaurus in free-text searching in a full-text database (1990) 0.00
    0.002231347 = product of:
      0.017850775 = sum of:
        0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 2043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017850775 = score(doc=2043,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 2043, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2043)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)