Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0039907596 = product of:
  0.015963038 = sum of:
    0.015963038 = weight(_text_:information in 5753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015963038 = score(doc=5753,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 5753, 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=5753)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reports the results of a study that investigated effects of four user characteristics on users' mental models of information retrieval systems: educational and professional status, first language, academic background, and computer experience. The repertory grid technique was used in the study. Using this method, important components of information retrieval systems were represented by nine concepts, based on four IR experts' judgments. Users' mental models were represented by factor scores that were derived from users' matrices of concept ratings on different attributes of the concepts. The study found that educational and professional status, academic background, and computer experience had significant effects in differentiating users on their factor scores. First language had a borderline effect, but the effect was not significant enough at a = 0.05 level. Specific different views regarding IR systems among different groups of users are described and discussed. Implications of the study for information science and IR system designs are suggested

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.6, S.445-459

0.0033256328 = product of:
  0.013302531 = sum of:
    0.013302531 = weight(_text_:information in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013302531 = score(doc=3608,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine changes in relevance assessments, specifically the selection of relevance criteria by subjects as they move through the information search process. Design/methodology/approach - The paper examines the relevance criteria choices of 39 subjects in relation to search stage. Subjects were assigned a specific search task in a controlled test. Statistics were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics and the chi-square goodness-of-fit tests. Findings - The statistically significant findings identified a number of commonly reported relevance criteria, which varied over an information search process for relevant and partially relevant judgments. These results provide statistical confirmations of previous studies, and extend these findings identifying specific criteria for both relevant and partially relevant judgments. Research limitations/implications - The study only examines a short duration search process and since the convenience sample of subjects were from similar backgrounds and were assigned similar tasks, the study did not explicitly examine the impact of contextual factors such as user experience, background or task in relation to relevance criteria choices. Practical implications - The paper has implications for the development of search systems which are adaptive and recognize the cognitive changes which occur during the information search process. Examining and identifying relevance criteria beyond topicality and the importance of those criteria to a user can help in the generation of better search queries. Originality/value - The paper adds more rigorous statistical analysis to the study of relevance criteria and the information search process.

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 1898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=1898,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1898, 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=1898)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to investigate the effects of different search and browse features in digital libraries (DLs) on task interactions, and what features would lead to poor user experience. Design/methodology/approach - Three operational DLs: ACM, IEEE CS, and IEEE Xplore are used in this study. These three DLs present different features in their search and browsing designs. Two information-seeking tasks are constructed: one search task and one browsing task. An experiment was conducted in a usability laboratory. Data from 35 participants are collected on a set of measures for user interactions. Findings - The results demonstrate significant differences in many aspects of the user interactions between the three DLs. For both search and browse designs, the features that lead to poor user interactions are identified. Research limitations/implications - User interactions are affected by specific design features in DLs. Some of the design features may lead to poor user performance and should be improved. The study was limited mainly in the variety and the number of tasks used. Originality/value - The study provided empirical evidence to the effects of interaction design features in DLs on user interactions and performance. The results contribute to our knowledge about DL designs in general and about the three operational DLs in particular.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 5410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=5410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5410, 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=5410)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.11, S.1236-1247