Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.058344852 = product of:
  0.116689704 = sum of:
    0.116689704 = sum of:
      0.07374596 = weight(_text_:2003 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07374596 = score(doc=1682,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044824958 = queryNorm
          0.3790807 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
            2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
              5.0 = termFreq=5.0
            4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
      0.042943746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042943746 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044824958 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article focuses an analysing students' information needs in terms of conceptual understanding of the topic they propose to study and its consequences for the search process and outcome. The research subjects were 22 undergraduates of psychology attending a seminar for preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. They were asked to make searches in the PsycINFO database for their task in the beginning and end of the seminar. A pre- and postsearch interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded, as were the transaction logs. The results show that during the preparation of research proposals different features of the students' conceptual structure were connected to the search success. Students' ability to cover their conceptual construct by query terms was the major feature affecting search success during the whole process. In the beginning also the number of concepts and the proportion of subconcepts in the construct contributed indirectly via search tactics to retrieving partly useful references. Students' ability to extract new query terms from retrieved items improved search results.

Date

19. 6.2003 17:22:33

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.8, S.759-770

Year

2003

0.052055888 = product of:
  0.104111776 = sum of:
    0.104111776 = sum of:
      0.07374596 = weight(_text_:2003 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07374596 = score(doc=1073,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044824958 = queryNorm
          0.3790807 = fieldWeight in 1073, product of:
            2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
              5.0 = termFreq=5.0
            4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1073)
      0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030365815 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044824958 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1073, 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=1073)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study analyses how students' growing understanding of the topic and search experience were related to their choice of search tactics and terms while preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. In addition to that, the findings of the study are used to test Vakkari's (2001) theory of task-based IR. The research subjects were 22 students of psychology attending a seminar for preparing the proposal. They made a search for their task in PsychINFO database at the beginning and end of the seminar. Data were collected in several ways. A pre- and post-search interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded as were the transaction logs. The results show that search experience was slightly related to the change of facets. Although the students' vocabulary of the topic grew generating an increased use of specific terms between the sessions, their use of search tactics and operators remained fairly constant. There was no correlation between the terms and tactics used and the total number of useful references found. By comparing these results with the findings of relevant earlier studies the conclusion was drawn that domain knowledge has an impact on searching assuming that users have a sufficient command of the system used. This implies that the tested theory of task-based IR is valid on condition that the searchers are experienced. It is suggested that the theory should be enriched by including search experience in its scope.

Source

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

Year

2003

0.013992311 = product of:
  0.027984623 = sum of:
    0.027984623 = product of:
      0.055969246 = sum of:
        0.055969246 = weight(_text_:2003 in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055969246 = score(doc=4288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.28770202 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.413-464

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?

0.007591454 = product of:
  0.015182908 = sum of:
    0.015182908 = product of:
      0.030365815 = sum of:
        0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030365815 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

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