Search (261 results, page 2 of 14)

0.016690476 = product of:
  0.03338095 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 2403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=2403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 2403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2403)
    0.012688936 = product of:
      0.025377871 = sum of:
        0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 2403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025377871 = score(doc=2403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2403, 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=2403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

Theme

Data Mining

0.016042989 = product of:
  0.064171955 = sum of:
    0.064171955 = sum of:
      0.041966315 = weight(_text_:processing in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041966315 = score(doc=2752,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.22138305 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.022205638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022205638 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: Acknowledgments; Abstract; Zusammenfassung; Contents; List of Figures; List of Tables; List of Acronyms; Chapter 1 Introduction ; 1.1 Research Questions; 1.2 Thesis Outline; Part I Fundamentals ; Chapter 2 Information Retrieval for Young Users ; 2.1 Basics of Information Retrieval; 2.1.1 Architecture of an IR System; 2.1.2 Relevance Ranking; 2.1.3 Search User Interfaces; 2.1.4 Targeted Search Engines; 2.2 Aspects of Child Development Relevant for Information Retrieval Tasks; 2.2.1 Human Cognitive Development; 2.2.2 Information Processing Theory; 2.2.3 Psychosocial Development 2.3 User Studies and Evaluation2.3.1 Methods in User Studies; 2.3.2 Types of Evaluation; 2.3.3 Evaluation with Children; 2.4 Discussion; Chapter 3 State of the Art ; 3.1 Children's Information-Seeking Behaviour; 3.1.1 Querying Behaviour; 3.1.2 Search Strategy; 3.1.3 Navigation Style; 3.1.4 User Interface; 3.1.5 Relevance Judgement; 3.2 Existing Algorithms and User Interface Concepts for Children; 3.2.1 Query; 3.2.2 Content; 3.2.3 Ranking; 3.2.4 Search Result Visualisation; 3.3 Existing Information Retrieval Systems for Children; 3.3.1 Digital Book Libraries; 3.3.2 Web Search Engines 3.4 Summary and DiscussionPart II Studying Open Issues ; Chapter 4 Usability of Existing Search Engines for Young Users ; 4.1 Assessment Criteria; 4.1.1 Criteria for Matching the Motor Skills; 4.1.2 Criteria for Matching the Cognitive Skills; 4.2 Results; 4.2.1 Conformance with Motor Skills; 4.2.2 Conformance with the Cognitive Skills; 4.2.3 Presentation of Search Results; 4.2.4 Browsing versus Searching; 4.2.5 Navigational Style; 4.3 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 5 Large-scale Analysis of Children's Queries and Search Interactions; 5.1 Dataset; 5.2 Results; 5.3 Summary and Discussion Chapter 6 Differences in Usability and Perception of Targeted Web Search Engines between Children and Adults 6.1 Related Work; 6.2 User Study; 6.3 Study Results; 6.4 Summary and Discussion; Part III Tackling the Challenges ; Chapter 7 Search User Interface Design for Children ; 7.1 Conceptual Challenges and Possible Solutions; 7.2 Knowledge Journey Design; 7.3 Evaluation; 7.3.1 Study Design; 7.3.2 Study Results; 7.4 Voice-Controlled Search: Initial Study; 7.4.1 User Study; 7.5 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 8 Addressing User Diversity ; 8.1 Evolving Search User Interface 8.1.1 Mapping Function8.1.2 Evolving Skills; 8.1.3 Detection of User Abilities; 8.1.4 Design Concepts; 8.2 Adaptation of a Search User Interface towards User Needs; 8.2.1 Design & Implementation; 8.2.2 Search Input; 8.2.3 Result Output; 8.2.4 General Properties; 8.2.5 Configuration and Further Details; 8.3 Evaluation; 8.3.1 Study Design; 8.3.2 Study Results; 8.3.3 Preferred UI Settings; 8.3.4 User satisfaction; 8.4 Knowledge Journey Exhibit; 8.4.1 Hardware; 8.4.2 Frontend; 8.4.3 Backend; 8.5 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 9 Supporting Visual Searchers in Processing Search Results 9.1 Related Work

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

0.015839024 = product of:
  0.063356094 = sum of:
    0.063356094 = weight(_text_:data in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063356094 = score(doc=438,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.4278775 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the architecture and implementation of the Semantic Web Search Engine (SWSE). Following traditional search engine architecture, SWSE consists of crawling, data enhancing, indexing and a user interface for search, browsing and retrieval of information; unlike traditional search engines, SWSE operates over RDF Web data - loosely also known as Linked Data - which implies unique challenges for the system design, architecture, algorithms, implementation and user interface. In particular, many challenges exist in adopting Semantic Web technologies for Web data: the unique challenges of the Web - in terms of scale, unreliability, inconsistency and noise - are largely overlooked by the current Semantic Web standards. Herein, we describe the current SWSE system, initially detailing the architecture and later elaborating upon the function, design, implementation and performance of each individual component. In so doing, we also give an insight into how current Semantic Web standards can be tailored, in a best-effort manner, for use on Web data. Throughout, we offer evaluation and complementary argumentation to support our design choices, and also offer discussion on future directions and open research questions. Later, we also provide candid discussion relating to the difficulties currently faced in bringing such a search engine into the mainstream, and lessons learnt from roughly six years working on the Semantic Web Search Engine project.

0.015519011 = product of:
  0.062076043 = sum of:
    0.062076043 = weight(_text_:data in 4437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062076043 = score(doc=4437,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 4437, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4437)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This site provides a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers. Search engines including Bing, Google and Yahoo! rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages. Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure. A shared markup vocabulary makes easier for webmasters to decide on a markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. So, in the spirit of sitemaps.org, Bing, Google and Yahoo! have come together to provide a shared collection of schemas that webmasters can use.

0.014822943 = product of:
  0.059291773 = sum of:
    0.059291773 = sum of:
      0.033913903 = weight(_text_:processing in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033913903 = score(doc=5285,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.17890452 = fieldWeight in 5285, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5285)
      0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 5285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025377871 = score(doc=5285,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5285, 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=5285)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The World Wide Web is a popular and interactive medium used to collect, disseminate, and access an increasingly huge amount of information, which constitutes the mainstay of the so-called information and knowledge society. Because of its spectacular growth, related to both Web resources (pages, sites, and services) and number of users, the Web is nowadays the main information repository and provides some automatic systems for locating, accessing, and retrieving information. However, an open and crucial question remains: how to provide fast and effective retrieval of the information relevant to specific users' needs. This is a very hard and complex task, since it is pervaded with subjectivity, vagueness, and uncertainty. The expression soft computing refers to techniques and methodologies that work synergistically with the aim of providing flexible information processing tolerant of imprecision, vagueness, partial truth, and approximation. So, soft computing represents a good candidate to design effective systems for information access and retrieval on the Web. One of the most representative tools of soft computing is fuzzy set theory. This special topic section collects research articles witnessing some recent advances in improving the processes of information access and retrieval on the Web by using soft computing tools, and in particular, by using fuzzy sets and/or integrating them with other soft computing tools. In this introductory article, we first review the problem of Web retrieval and the concept of soft computing technology. We then briefly introduce the articles in this section and conclude by highlighting some future research directions that could benefit from the use of soft computing technologies.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:59:33

0.01345865 = product of:
  0.0538346 = sum of:
    0.0538346 = product of:
      0.1076692 = sum of:
        0.1076692 = weight(_text_:22 in 3227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1076692 = score(doc=3227,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3227, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

7. 2.1996 22:38:41

Pages

22 S

0.01345865 = product of:
  0.0538346 = sum of:
    0.0538346 = product of:
      0.1076692 = sum of:
        0.1076692 = weight(_text_:22 in 4007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1076692 = score(doc=4007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4007, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.1999 20:22:06

0.01345865 = product of:
  0.0538346 = sum of:
    0.0538346 = product of:
      0.1076692 = sum of:
        0.1076692 = weight(_text_:22 in 4009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1076692 = score(doc=4009,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4009, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.1999 21:22:59

0.013439858 = product of:
  0.053759433 = sum of:
    0.053759433 = weight(_text_:data in 1233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053759433 = score(doc=1233,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 1233, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1233)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Searches conducted on web search engines reflect the interests of users and society. Google Trends, which provides information about the queries searched by users of the Google web search engine, is a rich data source from which a wealth of information can be mined. We investigated the possibility of using web search volume data from Google Trends to predict academic fame. As queries are language-dependent, we studied universities from two countries with different languages, the United States and Spain. We found a significant correlation between the search volume of a university name and the university's academic reputation or fame. We also examined the effect of some Google Trends features, namely, limiting the search to a specific country or topic category on the search volume data. Finally, we examined the effect of university sizes on the correlations found to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of the relationships.

0.01293251 = product of:
  0.05173004 = sum of:
    0.05173004 = weight(_text_:data in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05173004 = score(doc=3091,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Because of the increasing presence of scientific publications an the Web, combined with the existing difficulties in easily verifying and retrieving these publications, research an techniques and methods for retrieval of scientific Web publications is called for. In this article, we report an the initial steps taken toward the construction of a test collection of scientific Web publications within the subject domain of plant biology. The steps reported are those of data gathering and data analysis aiming at identifying characteristics of scientific Web publications. The data used in this article were generated based an specifically selected domain topics that are searched for in three publicly accessible search engines (Google, AlITheWeb, and AItaVista). A sample of the retrieved hits was analyzed with regard to how various publication attributes correlated with the scientific quality of the content and whether this information could be employed to harvest, filter, and rank Web publications. The attributes analyzed were inlinks, outlinks, bibliographic references, file format, language, search engine overlap, structural position (according to site structure), and the occurrence of various types of metadata. As could be expected, the ranked output differs between the three search engines. Apparently, this is caused by differences in ranking algorithms rather than the databases themselves. In fact, because scientific Web content in this subject domain receives few inlinks, both AItaVista and AlITheWeb retrieved a higher degree of accessible scientific content than Google. Because of the search engine cutoffs of accessible URLs, the feasibility of using search engine output for Web content analysis is also discussed.

0.01293251 = product of:
  0.05173004 = sum of:
    0.05173004 = weight(_text_:data in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05173004 = score(doc=373,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

On 17 March 2006, Google, the major web search engine, won a partial victory in its legal battle against the United States government. In an attempt to enforce the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, the us government had asked it to provide one million web addresses or URLs that are accessible through Google, as well as 5,000 users' search queries. In Gonzales v. Google, a California District Court ruled that Google did not have to comply fully with the us government's request: Google did not need to disclose a single search query, and was not required to provide more than 50.000 web addresses. However, it soon appeared that Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo! had handed over the information requested by the government in that instance, and in the course of this case all search engines publicly admitted massive user data collection. It turns out that all major search engines are able to provide a list of IP addresses with the actual search queries made, and vice versa. Scarcely five months later, AOL's search engine logs were the subject of yet another round of data protection concerns. There was a public outcry when it became known that it had published 21 million search queries, that is, the search histories of more than 650,000 of its users. While AOL's intentions were laudable (namely supporting research in user behaviour), it emerged that making the link between the unique ID supplied for a given user and the real-world identity was not all that difficult. Both these cases are milestones in raising awareness of the importance of data protection in relation to web search.

0.01293251 = product of:
  0.05173004 = sum of:
    0.05173004 = weight(_text_:data in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05173004 = score(doc=607,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Understanding what kinds of Web pages are the most useful for Web search engine users is a critical task in Web information retrieval (IR). Most previous works used hyperlink analysis algorithms to solve this problem. However, little research has been focused on query-independent Web data cleansing for Web IR. In this paper, we first provide analysis of the differences between retrieval target pages and ordinary ones based on more than 30 million Web pages obtained from both the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) and a widely used Chinese search engine, SOGOU (www.sogou.com). We further propose a learning-based data cleansing algorithm for reducing Web pages that are unlikely to be useful for user requests. We found that there exists a large proportion of low-quality Web pages in both the English and the Chinese Web page corpus, and retrieval target pages can be identified using query-independent features and cleansing algorithms. The experimental results showed that our algorithm is effective in reducing a large portion of Web pages with a small loss in retrieval target pages. It makes it possible for Web IR tools to meet a large fraction of users' needs with only a small part of pages on the Web. These results may help Web search engines make better use of their limited storage and computation resources to improve search performance.

Theme

Data Mining

0.012802532 = product of:
  0.051210128 = sum of:
    0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 4095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051210128 = score(doc=4095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 4095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4095)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes 4 search engines for the Internet: infoMarket Search; Yahoo and OpenText; Lycos Spider; and WebCompass. InfoMarket Search retrieves data from Web pages and information providers such as Disclosure, Information Access Company and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. It is able to search millions of Web pages in under five seconds. Automated 'crawlers' index the complete text of Web documents. Yahoo enables users to search for specific words and phrases and conduct multilevel Boolean and weighted searches. Lycos spider offers support for HotJava and indexes 91% of the Web. WebCompass polls multiple search engines such as Lycos and InfoSeek for relevant Web pages. A personalized index of topics may be built and retrieved data stored in a format based on Microsoft Access 2.0

0.012802532 = product of:
  0.051210128 = sum of:
    0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 3834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051210128 = score(doc=3834,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 3834, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3834)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Offers brief accounts of Internet search tools. Covers the Lycos revamp; the new navigation service produced jointly by Excite and Netscape, delivering a language specific, locally relevant Web guide for Japan, Germany, France, the UK and Australia; InfoWatcher, a combination offline browser, search engine and push product from Carvelle Inc., USA; Alexa by Alexa Internet and WBI from IBM which are free and provide users with information on how others have used the Web sites which they are visiting; and Concept Explorer from Knowledge Discovery Systems, Inc., California which performs data mining from the Web, Usenet groups, MEDLINE and the US Patent and Trademark Office patent abstracts

Theme

Data Mining

0.012802532 = product of:
  0.051210128 = sum of:
    0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 6561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051210128 = score(doc=6561,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 6561, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6561)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This project analyzed 541,920 user queries submitted to and executed in an academic Website during a four-year period (May 1997 to May 2001) using a relational database. The purpose of the study is three-fold: (1) to understand Web users' query behavior; (2) to identify problems encountered by these Web users; (3) to develop appropriate techniques for optimization of query analysis and mining. The linguistic analyses focus an query structures, lexicon, and word associations using statistical measures such as Zipf distribution and mutual information. A data model with finest granularity is used for data storage and iterative analyses. Patterns and trends of querying behavior are identified and compared with previous studies.

0.012717713 = product of:
  0.05087085 = sum of:
    0.05087085 = product of:
      0.1017417 = sum of:
        0.1017417 = weight(_text_:processing in 6274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1017417 = score(doc=6274,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.53671354 = fieldWeight in 6274, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6274)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.2, S.253-273

0.012717713 = product of:
  0.05087085 = sum of:
    0.05087085 = product of:
      0.1017417 = sum of:
        0.1017417 = weight(_text_:processing in 3941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1017417 = score(doc=3941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.53671354 = fieldWeight in 3941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 35(1999) no.2, S.141-180

0.012688936 = product of:
  0.050755743 = sum of:
    0.050755743 = product of:
      0.101511486 = sum of:
        0.101511486 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.101511486 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27.11.2005 18:04:22

0.011215541 = product of:
  0.044862162 = sum of:
    0.044862162 = product of:
      0.089724325 = sum of:
        0.089724325 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089724325 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.011199882 = product of:
  0.04479953 = sum of:
    0.04479953 = weight(_text_:data in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04479953 = score(doc=3961,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Cognitive style has been identified to be significantly influential in deciding users' preferences of search engines. In particular, Witkin's field dependence/independence has been widely studied in the area of web searching. It has been suggested that this cognitive style has conceptual links with the holism/serialism. This study aims to investigate the differences between the field dependence/independence and holism/serialism. Design/methodology/approach - An empirical study was conducted with 120 students from a UK university. Riding's cognitive style analysis (CSA) and Ford's study preference questionnaire (SPQ) were used to identify the students' cognitive styles. A questionnaire was designed to identify users' preferences for the design of search engines. Data mining techniques were applied to analyse the data obtained from the empirical study. Findings - The results highlight three findings. First, a fundamental link is confirmed between the two cognitive styles. Second, the relationship between field dependent users and holists is suggested to be more prominent than that of field independent users and serialists. Third, the interface design preferences of field dependent and field independent users can be split more clearly than those of holists and serialists. Originality/value - The contributions of this study include a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences between field dependence/independence and holists/serialists as well as proposing a novel methodology for data analyses.