Search (27 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=46,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 46, 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=46)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We analyzed how effort in searching is associated with search output and task outcome. In a field study, we examined how students' search effort for an assigned learning task was associated with precision and relative recall, and how this was associated to the quality of learning outcome. The study subjects were 41 medical students writing essays for a class in medicine. Searching in Medline was part of their assignment. The data comprised students' search logs in Medline, their assessment of the usefulness of references retrieved, a questionnaire concerning the search process, and evaluation scores of the essays given by the teachers. Pearson correlation was calculated for answering the research questions. Finally, a path model for predicting task outcome was built. We found that effort in the search process degraded precision but improved task outcome. There were two major mechanisms reducing precision while enhancing task outcome. Effort in expanding Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms within search sessions and effort in assessing and exploring documents in the result list between the sessions degraded precision, but led to better task outcome. Thus, human effort compensated bad retrieval results on the way to good task outcome. Findings suggest that traditional effectiveness measures in information retrieval should be complemented with evaluation measures for search process and outcome.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.657-670

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 1732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=1732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1732)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper sets out to examine the degree to which General Finnish Thesaurus (GFT) and FinMeSH cover various semantic expressions of medical concepts in patients' questions and physicians' answers concerning cardiovascular diseases. The former represents lay persons' information needs. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 50 question-answer pairs were collected in a medical web site. Concepts and their expressions (terms) with their semantic relations were identified in questions and answers. Findings - FinMeSH covered 65 per cent and GFT 41 per cent of all medical terms in texts. The expressions of patients and physicians matched better with FinMeSH than GFT regardless of the type of expression. The difference in favour of FinMeSH was typically about 25 per cent-units. Originality/value - The low fit with users' vocabularies makes GFT a poor tool for supporting searching, whereas the relatively high fit of FinMeSH suggests that it is a reasonable tool in assisting searching. Conclusions concerning the bridging of these two thesauri are discussed.

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1249-1257

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1073, 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=1073)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.3, S.445-463

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 3546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=3546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3546, 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=3546)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 3789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=3789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3789, 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=3789)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2154-2165

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.7, S.839-852