Search (120 results, page 1 of 6)

0.049989868 = product of:
  0.099979736 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1073)
    0.07411472 = sum of:
      0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042392377 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 1073, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1073)
      0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03172234 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = 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(2/4)

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

0.044218265 = product of:
  0.08843653 = sum of:
    0.06940313 = weight(_text_:data in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06940313 = score(doc=3589,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 3589, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3589)
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = 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(2/4)

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.

0.030330349 = product of:
  0.060660698 = sum of:
    0.04479953 = weight(_text_:data in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04479953 = score(doc=5842,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 5842, 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=5842)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=5842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5842, 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=5842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose A new approach to investigate serendipitous knowledge discovery (SKD) of health information is developed and tested to evaluate the information flow-serendipitous knowledge discovery (IF-SKD) model. The purpose of this paper is to determine the degree to which IF-SKD reflects physicians' information behaviour in a clinical setting and explore how the information system, Spark, designed to support physicians' SKD, meets its goals. Design/methodology/approach The proposed pre-experimental study design employs an adapted version of the McCay-Peet's (2013) and McCay-Peet et al.'s (2015) serendipitous digital environment (SDE) questionnaire research tool to address the complexity associated with defining the way in which SKD is understood and applied in system design. To test the IF-SKD model, the new data analysis approach combining confirmatory factor analysis, data imputation and Monte Carlo simulations was developed. Findings The piloting of the proposed novel analysis approach demonstrated that small sample information behaviour survey data can be meaningfully examined using a confirmatory factor analysis technique. Research limitations/implications This method allows to improve the reliability in measuring SKD and the generalisability of findings. Originality/value This paper makes an original contribution to developing and refining methods and tools of research into information-system-supported serendipitous discovery of information by health providers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.029316615 = product of:
  0.05863323 = sum of:
    0.029262928 = weight(_text_:data in 3412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029262928 = score(doc=3412,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 3412, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3412)
    0.029370302 = product of:
      0.058740605 = sum of:
        0.058740605 = weight(_text_:processing in 3412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058740605 = score(doc=3412,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.30987173 = fieldWeight in 3412, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Information extraction systems discover structured information in natural language text. Having information in structured form enables much richer querying and data mining than possible over the natural language text. However, information extraction is a computationally expensive task, and hence improving the efficiency of the extraction process over large text collections is of critical interest. In this paper, we focus on an especially valuable family of text collections, namely, the so-called deep-web text collections, whose contents are not crawlable and are only available via querying. Important steps for efficient information extraction over deep-web text collections (e.g., selecting the collections on which to focus the extraction effort, based on their contents; or learning which documents within these collections-and in which order-to process, based on their words and phrases) require having a representative document sample from each collection. These document samples have to be collected by querying the deep-web text collections, an expensive process that renders impractical the existing sampling approaches developed for other data scenarios. In this paper, we systematically study the space of query-based document sampling techniques for information extraction over the deep web. Specifically, we consider (i) alternative query execution schedules, which vary on how they account for the query effectiveness, and (ii) alternative document retrieval and processing schedules, which vary on how they distribute the extraction effort over documents. We report the results of the first large-scale experimental evaluation of sampling techniques for information extraction over the deep web. Our results show the merits and limitations of the alternative query execution and document retrieval and processing strategies, and provide a roadmap for addressing this critically important building block for efficient, scalable information extraction.

Source

Information processing and management. 53(2017) no.2, S.309-331

0.028887425 = product of:
  0.05777485 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=2726,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=2726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

Source

Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.6, S.1136-1150

0.028236724 = product of:
  0.05647345 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=923,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 923, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=923)
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=923,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 923, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=923)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Engineers face a wide range of gaps when trying to identify, acquire, and utilize information from the Web. To be able to avoid creating such gaps, it is essential to understand them in detail. This paper reports the results of a study of the real life gaps in information usage processes of 17 engineers. Using the critical incident interviewing technique, 65 examples of information usage processes were uncovered. An inductive analysis of these data, using the constant comparison method, yields five classes of identification gaps, of acquisition gaps, and of utilization gaps. Within these fifteen gap classes, 79 types of information usage gaps are identified. The results of this study confirm and extend existing studies on information usage gaps. Future research should examine whether such gaps need to be bridged and, if so, how they could be bridged.

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.5, S.1368-1382

0.028236724 = product of:
  0.05647345 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 2739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=2739,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2739, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2739)
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 2739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=2739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study investigated whether and how different factors in relation to task, user-perceived knowledge, search process, and system affect users' search tactic selection. Thirty-one participants, representing the general public with their own tasks, were recruited for this study. Multiple methods were employed to collect data, including pre-questionnaire, verbal protocols, log analysis, diaries, and post-questionnaires. Statistical analysis revealed that seven factors were significantly associated with tactic selection. These factors consist of work task types, search task types, familiarity with topic, search skills, search session length, search phases, and system types. Moreover, the study also discovered, qualitatively, in what ways these factors influence the selection of search tactics. Based on the findings, the authors discuss practical implications for system design to support users' application of multiple search tactics for each factor.

Source

Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.2, S.254-270

0.023530604 = product of:
  0.04706121 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 3910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=3910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3910)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 3910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=3910,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 3910, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Web queries in question format are becoming a common element of a user's interaction with Web search engines. Web search services such as Ask Jeeves - a publicly accessible question and answer (Q&A) search engine - request users to enter question format queries. This paper provides results from a study examining queries in question format submitted to two different Web search engines - Ask Jeeves that explicitly encourages queries in question format and the Excite search service that does not explicitly encourage queries in question format. We identify the characteristics of queries in question format in two different data sets: (1) 30,000 Ask Jeeves queries and 15,575 Excite queries, including the nature, length, and structure of queries in question format. Findings include: (1) 50% of Ask Jeeves queries and less than 1% of Excite were in question format, (2) most users entered only one query in question format with little query reformulation, (3) limited range of formats for queries in question format - mainly "where", "what", or "how" questions, (4) most common question query format was "Where can I find ..." for general information on a topic, and (5) non-question queries may be in request format. Overall, four types of user Web queries were identified: keyword, Boolean, question, and request. These findings provide an initial mapping of the structure and content of queries in question and request format. Implications for Web search services are discussed.

Source

Information processing and management. 38(2002) no.4, S.453-471

0.023530604 = product of:
  0.04706121 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 5170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=5170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 5170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Meho and Tibbo show that the Ellis model of information seeking applies to a web environment by way of a replication of his study in this case using behavior of social science faculty studying stateless nations, a group diverse in skills, origins, and research specialities. Data were collected by way of e-mail interviews. Material on stateless nations was limited to papers in English on social science topics published between 1998 and 2000. Of these 251 had 212 unique authors identified as academic scholars and had sufficient information to provide e-mail addresses. Of the 139 whose addresses were located, 9 who were physically close were reserved for face to face interviews, and of the remainder 60 agreed to participate and responded to the 25 open ended question interview. Follow up questions generated a 75% response. Of the possible face to face interviews five agreed to participate and provided 26 thousand words as opposed to 69 thousand by the 45 e-mail participants. The activities of the Ellis model are confirmed but four additional activities are also identified. These are accessing, i.e. finding the material identified in indirect sources of information; networking, or the maintaining of close contacts with a wide range of colleagues and other human sources; verifying, i.e. checking the accuracy of new information; and information managing, the filing and organizing of collected information. All activities are grouped into four stages searching, accessing, processing, and ending.

0.023530604 = product of:
  0.04706121 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This research contrasts two different conceptions, fields and pathways, of individual information behavior in context. These different approaches imply different relationships between actors and their information environments and, thus, encapsulate different views of the relationship between individual actions and contexts. We discuss these different theoretical views, then empirically compare and contrast them. The operationalization of these conceptions is based on different analytic treatments of the same raw data: a battery of three questions based on respondent's unaided recall of the sources they would consult for information on inherited cancers, a particularly rich information seeking problem. These operationalizations are then analyzed in a nomological network of related concepts drawn from an omnibus survey of 882 adults. The results indicated four clusters for fields and 16 different pathways, indicating increased fragmentation of information environments, with different underlying logics and active ingredients, although the use of the Internet appears to be an emerging common theme. The analysis of the nomological network suggests that both approaches may have applications for particular problems. In the implications, we compare and contrast these approaches, discussing their significance for future methodological, analytical, and theoretical developments.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.2, S.583-592

0.023530604 = product of:
  0.04706121 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 1281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=1281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 1281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that users' cognitive styles play an important role during web searching. However, only a limited number of studies have showed the relationship between cognitive styles and web search behavior. Most importantly, it is not clear which components of web search behavior are influenced by cognitive styles. This article examines the relationships between users' cognitive styles and their web searching and develops a model that portrays the relationship. The study uses qualitative and quantitative analyses based on data gathered from 50 participants. A questionnaire was utilized to collect participants' demographic information, and Riding's (1991) Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) test to assess their cognitive styles. Results show that users' cognitive styles influenced their information-searching strategies, query reformulation behavior, web navigational styles, and information-processing approaches. The user model developed in this study depicts the fundamental relationships between users' web search behavior and their cognitive styles. Modeling web search behavior with a greater understanding of users' cognitive styles can help information science researchers and information systems designers to bridge the semantic gap between the user and the systems. Implications of the research for theory and practice, and future work, are discussed.

0.020863095 = product of:
  0.04172619 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=2603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2603)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=2603,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2603, 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=2603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to report the result of follow-up research on end-users' conceptions of information visibility on the web and their conceptualizations of success and failure in web searching. Design/methodology/approach - The data were collected by a questionnaire followed by a brief interview with the participants. The questionnaire was developed based on the information visibility model suggested by the author in the original study. Fifty-two library and information sciences students from Tarbiat Mollem University (TMU) and Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS) in Tehran took part in the study. Findings - The model of information visibility can enable web users to gain a better understanding of their information seeking (IS) outcomes and it can assist them to improve their information literacy skills. The model can provide a theoretical framework to investigate web users' IS behavior and can be used as a diagnostic tool to explore the contextual and conceptual elements affecting the visibility of information for end-users. Research limitations/implications - The paper suggests a visibility learning diary (VLD), which might be useful to measure the efficiency of information literacy training courses. Originality/value - The contextual and conceptual approach of the paper provides a deeper insight into the issue of information visibility, which has received little attention by IS and information retrieval researchers until now.

Date

1. 1.2009 10:22:40

0.020863095 = product of:
  0.04172619 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
    0.01586117 = product of:
      0.03172234 = sum of:
        0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03172234 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Keeping up to date with research developments is a central activity of academic researchers, but researchers face difficulties in managing the rapid growth of available scientific information. This study examined how researchers stay up to date, using the information journey model as a framework for analysis and investigating which dimensions influence information behaviors. We designed a 2-round study involving semistructured interviews and prototype testing with 61 researchers with 3 levels of seniority (PhD student to professor). Data were analyzed following a semistructured qualitative approach. Five key dimensions that influence information behaviors were identified: level of seniority, information sources, state of the project, level of familiarity, and how well defined the relevant community is. These dimensions are interrelated and their values determine the flow of the information journey. Across all levels of professional expertise, researchers used similar hard (formal) sources to access content, while soft (interpersonal) sources were used to filter information. An important "pain point" that future information tools should address is helping researchers filter information at the point of need.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35

0.01852868 = product of:
  0.07411472 = sum of:
    0.07411472 = sum of:
      0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042392377 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2680, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2680)
      0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03172234 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25. 1.2016 18:46:22

Source

Information processing and management. 51(2015) no.5, S.557-569

0.016690476 = product of:
  0.03338095 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
    0.012688936 = product of:
      0.025377871 = sum of:
        0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025377871 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Previous empirical studies of searcher behaviour have drawn attention to a wide variety of factors that affect performance; for instance, the display of retrieved results can alter search strategies (Allen 1991, 1994), the information need type influences search behaviour, (Elkerton et al 1984, Marchionini 1995); while the task complexity, reflected in the information need can affect user's search behaviour (Large et al 1994). Furthermore, information source selection (Bassilli 1977), and the user's model of the system and domain impact on the search process (Michel 1994); while motivation (Solomon 1993, Jacobsen et al 1992) and the importance of the information need (Wendt 1969) also influence search duration and the effort a user will employ. Rouse and Rouse (1984) in a review of empirical studies, summarise a wide variety of variables that can effect searching behaviour, including payoff, costs of searching, resource available, amount of information sought, characteristics of the data and conflicts between documents. It appears that user behaviour is inconsistent in the search strategies adopted even for the same search need and system (Davidson 1977, Iivonen 1995). Theories of searcher behaviour have been proposed that provide explanations of aspects of end-user behaviour, such as the evolution of the user's information need and the problems of articulating a query, [Bates (1979, 1989), Markey and Atherton 1978], effective search strategies in browsing and goal directed searches [Marchionini 1995, Belkin (1987, 1993)], the linguistic problem of matching search terms with indexing terms or content of target documents through an expert intermediary (Ingwersen 1982) or cognitive aspects of IR (Kulthau 1984, Ingwersen 1996).

Date

22. 3.2002 9:54:13

0.016690476 = product of:
  0.03338095 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
    0.012688936 = product of:
      0.025377871 = sum of:
        0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025377871 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Surfing the World Wide Web used to be cool, dude, real cool. But things have gotten hot - so hot that finding something useful an the Web is no longer cool. It is suffocating Web searchers in the smoke and debris of mountain-sized lists of hits, decisions about which search engines they should use, whether they will get lost in the dizzying maze of a subject directory, use the right syntax for the search engine at hand, enter keywords that are likely to retrieve hits an the topics they have in mind, or enlist a browser that has sufficient functionality to display the most promising hits. When it comes to Web searching, in a few short years we have gone from the cool image of surfing the Web into the frying pan of searching the Web. We can turn down the heat by rethinking what Web searchers are doing and introduce some order into the chaos. Web search strategies that are tool-based-oriented to specific Web searching tools such as search en gines, subject directories, and meta search engines-have been widely promoted, and these strategies are just not working. It is time to dissect what Web searching tools expect from searchers and adjust our search strategies to these new tools. This discussion offers Web searchers help in the form of search strategies that are based an strategies that librarians have been using for a long time to search commercial information retrieval systems like Dialog, NEXIS, Wilsonline, FirstSearch, and Data-Star.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.014837332 = product of:
  0.05934933 = sum of:
    0.05934933 = product of:
      0.11869866 = sum of:
        0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11869866 = score(doc=2088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 35(1999) no.6, S.727-750

0.014837332 = product of:
  0.05934933 = sum of:
    0.05934933 = product of:
      0.11869866 = sum of:
        0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11869866 = score(doc=333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.5, S.721-740

0.01293251 = product of:
  0.05173004 = sum of:
    0.05173004 = weight(_text_:data in 495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05173004 = score(doc=495,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 495, 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=495)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In information seeking and retrieval research, researchers often collect data about users' behaviors to predict task characteristics and personalize information for users. The reliability of user behavior may be directly influenced by data collection methods. This article reports on a mixed-methods study examining the impact of study setting (laboratory setting vs. remote setting) and task authenticity (authentic task vs. simulated task) on users' online browsing and searching behaviors. Thirty-six undergraduate participants finished one lab session and one remote session in which they completed one authentic and one simulated task. Using log data collected from 144 task sessions, this study demonstrates that the synthetic lab study setting and simulated tasks had significant influences mostly on behaviors related to content pages (e.g., page dwell time, number of pages visited per task). Meanwhile, first-query behaviors were less affected by study settings or task authenticity than whole-session behaviors, indicating the reliability of using first-query behaviors in task prediction. Qualitative interviews reveal why users were influenced. This study addresses methodological limitations in existing research and provides new insights and implications for researchers who collect online user search behavioral data.

0.012802532 = product of:
  0.051210128 = sum of:
    0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 7438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051210128 = score(doc=7438,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 7438, 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=7438)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews the form and application of information abstraction in an information retrieval interface. Discusses the results of an explanatory study undertaken to develop an understanding of the information search strategy and the decision strategy used, and whether these strategies were related. Describes the design of an experimental interface to evaluate its effects. Discusses an experiment where data were collected on the activities of subjects while they used an interface to solve an alternative ranking problem. Presents an analysis of the data, conclusions and implications of the study