Search (507 results, page 1 of 26)

0.20056282 = product of:
  0.2507035 = sum of:
    0.12269233 = weight(_text_:section in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12269233 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.46641576 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5299, 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=5299)
    0.013578499 = weight(_text_:information in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013578499 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
    0.093118176 = sum of:
      0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03908618 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
      0.054031998 = weight(_text_:22 in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054031998 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:17:44

Footnote

Beitrag in einer Special Section "Perspectives on Search User Interfaces: Best Practices and Future Visions"

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.6, S.808-812

0.120272025 = product of:
  0.20045337 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
    0.028804345 = weight(_text_:information in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028804345 = score(doc=2973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
    0.13967726 = sum of:
      0.058629274 = weight(_text_:technology in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058629274 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.39488205 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.08104799 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08104799 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.577-590

0.08168147 = product of:
  0.13613577 = sum of:
    0.03574552 = weight(_text_:on in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03574552 = score(doc=2747,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.32602316 = fieldWeight in 2747, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2747)
    0.030551622 = weight(_text_:information in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030551622 = score(doc=2747,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 2747, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2747)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=2747,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2747, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2747)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=2747,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2747, 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=2747)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This study focuses on the task as a fundamental factor in the context of information seeking. The purpose of the study is to characterize kinds of tasks and to examine how different kinds of task give rise to different kinds of information-seeking behavior on the Web. For this, a model for information-seeking behavior was used employing dimensions of information-seeking strategies (ISS), which are based on several behavioral dimensions. The analysis of strategies was based on data collected through an experiment designed to observe users' behaviors. Three tasks were assigned to 30 graduate students and data were collected using questionnaires, search logs, and interviews. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data identified 14 distinct information-seeking strategies. The analysis showed significant differences in the frequencies and patterns of ISS employed between three tasks. The results of the study are intended to facilitate the development of task-based information-seeking models and to further suggest Web information system designs that support the user's diverse tasks.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:54:15

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.679-693

0.07897312 = product of:
  0.13162187 = sum of:
    0.092019245 = weight(_text_:section in 5240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092019245 = score(doc=5240,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34981182 = fieldWeight in 5240, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5240)
    0.024945294 = weight(_text_:information in 5240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024945294 = score(doc=5240,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 5240, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5240)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 5240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=5240,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5240, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In this issue we begin with the first of four parts of a five part series of papers by Spink, Wilson, Ford, Foster, and Ellis. Spink, et alia, in the first section of this report set forth the design of a project to test whether existing models of the information search process are appropriate for an environment of mediated successive searching which they believe characterizes much information seeking behavior. Their goal is to develop an integrated model of the process. Data were collected from 198 individuals, 87 in Texas and 111 in Sheffield in the U.K., with individuals with real information needs engaged in interaction with operational information retrieval systems by use of transaction logs, recordings of interactions with intermediaries, pre, and post search interviews, questionnaire responses, relevance judgments of retrieved text, and responses to a test of cognitive styles. Questionnaires were based upon the Kuhlthau model, the Saracevic model, the Ellis model, and incorporated a visual analog scale to avoid a consistency bias.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.695-703

0.07766904 = product of:
  0.1294484 = sum of:
    0.092019245 = weight(_text_:section in 5239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092019245 = score(doc=5239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34981182 = fieldWeight in 5239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5239)
    0.022771835 = weight(_text_:information in 5239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022771835 = score(doc=5239,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 5239, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5239)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 5239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=5239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In "Part 4. Cognitive Styles in Information Seeking,'' where Ford is the primary author, the results of the application of the Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis and the Pask's holist/serialist portion of the Ford's Study Process Questionnaire to the 111 U.K. participants. were correlated using Spearman's coefficient with reports of focused thinking, degree of change in the intermediary's perception of the problem and personal knowledge, problem stage, degree of differentiating activity, change in problem perception, engagement in exploring activity, changes in questioning, valuing of serendipitous information, and other variables. The results would indicate that field independent individuals report clearer more focused thinking, see themselves in an earlier problem stage, and report higher levels of change in perception of the problem. Holists value serendipity and report engagement in Kuhlthau's exploring stage. They are seen by intermediaries as exhibiting fewer changes in questioning behavior. A fifth section will appear in a later issue.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.9, S.728-735

0.07015869 = product of:
  0.11693114 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=760,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
    0.08147841 = sum of:
      0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03420041 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047278 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.

Source

Information technology and libraries. 7(1988), S.359-372

0.0671575 = product of:
  0.11192916 = sum of:
    0.027688364 = weight(_text_:on in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027688364 = score(doc=5228,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
    0.0144021725 = weight(_text_:information in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144021725 = score(doc=5228,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5228, 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=5228)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Bilal, in this third part of her Yahooligans! study looks at children's performance with self-generated search tasks, as compared to previously assigned search tasks looking for differences in success, cognitive behavior, physical behavior, and task preference. Lotus ScreenCam was used to record interactions and post search interviews to record impressions. The subjects, the same 22 seventh grade children in the previous studies, generated topics of interest that were mediated with the researcher into more specific topics where necessary. Fifteen usable sessions form the basis of the study. Eleven children were successful in finding information, a rate of 73% compared to 69% in assigned research questions, and 50% in assigned fact-finding questions. Eighty-seven percent began using one or two keyword searches. Spelling was a problem. Successful children made fewer keyword searches and the number of search moves averaged 5.5 as compared to 2.4 on the research oriented task and 3.49 on the factual. Backtracking and looping were common. The self-generated task was preferred by 47% of the subjects.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.13, S.1170-1183

0.06605104 = product of:
  0.11008507 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=1540,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
    0.017638987 = weight(_text_:information in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017638987 = score(doc=1540,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Hundreds of scholarly studies have investigated various aspects of Wikipedia. Although a number of literature reviews have provided overviews of this vast body of research, none has specifically focused on the readers of Wikipedia and issues concerning its readership. In this systematic literature review, we review 99 studies to synthesize current knowledge regarding the readership of Wikipedia and provide an analysis of research methods employed. The scholarly research has found that Wikipedia is popular not only for lighter topics such as entertainment but also for more serious topics such as health and legal information. Scholars, librarians, and students are common users, and Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity for educating students in digital literacy. We conclude with a summary of key findings, implications for researchers, and implications for the Wikipedia community.

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.12, S.2381-2403

0.06410895 = product of:
  0.106848255 = sum of:
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
    0.0144021725 = weight(_text_:information in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144021725 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 197, 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=197)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Four focus groups were held with young Web users (10 to 13 years of age) to explore design criteria for Web portals. The focus group participants commented upon four existing portals designed with young users in mind: Ask Jeeves for Kids, KidsClick, Lycos Zone, and Yahooligans! This article reports their first impressions on using these portals, their likes and dislikes, and their suggestions for improvements. Design criteria for children's Web portals are elaborated based upon these comments under four headings: portal goals, visual design, information architecture, and personalization. An ideal portal should cater for both educational and entertainment needs, use attractive screen designs based especially on effective use of color, graphics, and animation, provide both keyword search facilities and browsable subject categories, and allow individual user personalization in areas such as color and graphics

Date

2. 6.2005 10:34:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.2, S.79-94

0.062455516 = product of:
  0.10409252 = sum of:
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
    0.02245333 = weight(_text_:information in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02245333 = score(doc=1003,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
    0.06831763 = sum of:
      0.03454763 = weight(_text_:technology in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03454763 = score(doc=1003,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1590-1607

0.05596459 = product of:
  0.09327431 = sum of:
    0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 6117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023073634 = score(doc=6117,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 6117, 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=6117)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 6117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=6117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6117)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 6117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=6117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 6117, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6117)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 6117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=6117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.12, S.1678-1693

0.053424135 = product of:
  0.08904022 = sum of:
    0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018839544 = score(doc=4193,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 4193, 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=4193)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=4193,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4193, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4193)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4193, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4193)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.295-313

0.053096134 = product of:
  0.088493556 = sum of:
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
    0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016973123 = score(doc=1177,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Search engine users typically engage in multiquery sessions in their quest to fulfill their information needs. Despite a plethora of research findings suggesting that a significant group of users look for information within a specific geographical scope, existing reformulation studies lack a focused analysis of how users reformulate geographic queries. This study comprehensively investigates the ways in which users reformulate such needs in an attempt to fill this gap in the literature. Reformulated sessions were sampled from a query log of a major search engine to extract 2,400 entries that were manually inspected to filter geo sessions. This filter identified 471 search sessions that included geographical intent, and these sessions were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The results revealed that one in five of the users who reformulated their queries were looking for geographically related information. They reformulated their queries by changing the content of the query rather than the structure. Users were not following a unified sequence of modifications and instead performed a single reformulation action. However, in some cases it was possible to anticipate their next move. A number of tasks in geo modifications were identified, including standard, multi-needs, multi-places, and hybrid approaches. The research concludes that it is important to specialize query reformulation studies to focus on particular query types rather than generically analyzing them, as it is apparent that geographic queries have their special reformulation characteristics.

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.13-24

0.051314984 = product of:
  0.08552497 = sum of:
    0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018839544 = score(doc=56,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.4, S.462-478

0.051116638 = product of:
  0.085194394 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 5805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=5805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 5805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5805)
    0.024003621 = weight(_text_:information in 5805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024003621 = score(doc=5805,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 5805, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5805)
    0.03454763 = product of:
      0.06909526 = sum of:
        0.06909526 = weight(_text_:technology in 5805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06909526 = score(doc=5805,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.46537298 = fieldWeight in 5805, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Reports on the results of focused group interviews conducted by OCLC of library users and OPACs. Library users, library public and technical services staff at six libraries were interviewed. Details their neeeds and perceptions

Footnote

Reprinted from: Information technology and libraries 2(1983) no.4, S.381-387

Source

Information technology and libraries. 12(1993) no.1, S.87-92

0.05053254 = product of:
  0.08422089 = sum of:
    0.018458908 = weight(_text_:on in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018458908 = score(doc=286,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16835764 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.019202897 = weight(_text_:information in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019202897 = score(doc=286,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.046559088 = sum of:
      0.01954309 = weight(_text_:technology in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01954309 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.027015999 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027015999 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.04824311 = product of:
  0.080405176 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=1320,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 1320, 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=1320)
    0.03377609 = weight(_text_:information in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03377609 = score(doc=1320,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.38596505 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=1320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

User studies provide libraries with invaluable insight into their users' information needs and behaviors, allowing them to develop services that correspond to these needs. This insight has become even more important for libraries since the advent of the Internet. The Internet has brought about a development of information technologies and electronic information sources that have had a great impact on both the ways users search for information and the ways libraries manage information. Although humanists represent an important group of users for academic libraries, research studies into their information-seeking behavior since the advent of the Internet have been quite scarce (Ellis & Oldman, 2005) in the past decade. This study presents updated research on a group of humanists, Jewish studies scholars living in Israel, as information users in the digital age based on two categories: (a) the use of formal and informal information channels, and (b) the use of information technologies and their impact on humanistic research.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.14, S.2269-2279

0.048004195 = product of:
  0.08000699 = sum of:
    0.013321568 = weight(_text_:on in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013321568 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2637, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2637)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2637, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2637)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.350-365

0.04734862 = product of:
  0.07891436 = sum of:
    0.032631043 = weight(_text_:on in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032631043 = score(doc=297,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29761705 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
    0.029398315 = weight(_text_:information in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029398315 = score(doc=297,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
    0.016885 = product of:
      0.03377 = sum of:
        0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, Sheffield, UK, 1998. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.0459489 = product of:
  0.0765815 = sum of:
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=1795,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
    0.02656714 = weight(_text_:information in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02656714 = score(doc=1795,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
    0.023639 = product of:
      0.047278 = sum of:
        0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047278 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Presents a recently composite view of several user studies in information retrieval. Contains personal conclusions and speculations based on these studies, rather than formal statistical results, which so often are not comparable from 1 experiment to another. Suggests a taxonomy of user characteristics for such studies, in order to make results comparable. Discusses methods and effects of user training, then manner of expression of a query or information need, conduct of a search, use of the system command language or its equivalent, analysis by the user of retrieved information, and user satisfaction with outcome. Concludes with suggestions for system design and experimental methodology

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 19(1994) no.4, S.1-22