Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022123788 = product of:
  0.044247575 = sum of:
    0.044247575 = product of:
      0.08849515 = sum of:
        0.08849515 = weight(_text_:2003 in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08849515 = score(doc=1753,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.45489684 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.10, S.939-951

Year

2003

0.022123788 = product of:
  0.044247575 = sum of:
    0.044247575 = product of:
      0.08849515 = sum of:
        0.08849515 = weight(_text_:2003 in 1074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08849515 = score(doc=1074,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.45489684 = fieldWeight in 1074, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.3, S.391-402

Year

2003

0.009328208 = product of:
  0.018656416 = sum of:
    0.018656416 = product of:
      0.03731283 = sum of:
        0.03731283 = weight(_text_:2003 in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03731283 = score(doc=643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.19180135 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) is a research area both within Computer Science and Information Science. It has by and large two communities: a Computer Science oriented experimental approach and a user-oriented Information Science approach with a Social Science background. The communities hold a critical stance towards each other (e.g., Ingwersen, 1996), the latter suspecting the realism of the former, and the former suspecting the usefulness of the latter. Within Information Science the study of information seeking (IS) also has a Social Science background. There is a lot of research in each of these particular areas of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R). However, the three communities do not really communicate with each other. Why is this, and could the relationships be otherwise? Do the communities in fact belong together? Or perhaps each community is better off forgetting about the existence of the other two? We feel that the relationships between the research areas have not been properly analyzed. One way to analyze the relationships is to examine what each research area is trying to find out: which phenomena are being explained and how. We believe that IS&R research would benefit from being analytic about its frameworks, models and theories, not just at the level of meta-theories, but also much more concretely at the level of study designs. Over the years there have been calls for more context in the study of IS&R. Work tasks as well as cultural activities/interests have been proposed as the proper context for information access. For example, Wersig (1973) conceptualized information needs from the tasks perspective. He argued that in order to learn about information needs and seeking, one needs to take into account the whole active professional role of the individuals being investigated. Byström and Järvelin (1995) analysed IS processes in the light of tasks of varying complexity. Ingwersen (1996) discussed the role of tasks and their descriptions and problematic situations from a cognitive perspective on IR. Most recently, Vakkari (2003) reviewed task-based IR and Järvelin and Ingwersen (2004) proposed the extension of IS&R research toward the task context. Therefore there is much support to the task context, but how should it be applied in IS&R?

0.009109745 = product of:
  0.01821949 = sum of:
    0.01821949 = product of:
      0.03643898 = sum of:
        0.03643898 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03643898 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.009109745 = product of:
  0.01821949 = sum of:
    0.01821949 = product of:
      0.03643898 = sum of:
        0.03643898 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03643898 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.007591454 = product of:
  0.015182908 = sum of:
    0.015182908 = product of:
      0.030365815 = sum of:
        0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030365815 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, 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=1369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42

0.007591454 = product of:
  0.015182908 = sum of:
    0.015182908 = product of:
      0.030365815 = sum of:
        0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030365815 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06