Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008462544 = product of:
  0.06770035 = sum of:
    0.06770035 = weight(_text_:case in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06770035 = score(doc=4349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.008462544 = product of:
  0.06770035 = sum of:
    0.06770035 = weight(_text_:case in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06770035 = score(doc=4519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Explores the variety of user behaviour exhibited by users of information retrieval systems over time and the effort of differences between expert and novice searchers on an understanding of information searching dynamics and on the design of information systems. Based on a naturalistic case study. Points out some of the dynamic patterns of behaviour of children's use of online catalogues (OPACs)

0.008462544 = product of:
  0.06770035 = sum of:
    0.06770035 = weight(_text_:case in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06770035 = score(doc=1423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.008462544 = product of:
  0.06770035 = sum of:
    0.06770035 = weight(_text_:case in 322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06770035 = score(doc=322,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 322, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=322)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 3268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=3268,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 3268, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3268)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Investigates the cognitive nature of an end-user's relevance judgements using the concept of mental modes. Identifies situational factors of relevance by noting the judgement criteria used by subjects as they move through the relevance judgement process. Tests the feasibility of the specific research strategy employed in this study that incorporates an intensive case study of the search behaviour of searchers with naturalistic inquiry for which the cognitive development and situational factors of end-user relevance judgements are the centre of the investigation. Introduces a dynamic model or relevance on which the study is built, presents methodology, results and discussion

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=148)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper builds on numerous suggestions of the need for a theoretical basis for knowledge organization from the point of view of interest, concern, or problem (e.g., domain, ecology, use environment, or language game). This is accomplished by first developing a possible theoretical understanding of why knowledge organization schemes tend toward stability through structuration and autopoiesis. In understanding this tendency, the possibility of promoting (desirable) change is also considered through activity. Second, the paper considers the requirements for the contextualization provided by such mappings. Finally, the case of the Internet is briefly explored. All of this provides a recipe a theory for practice 'stew,' which would highlight the possibility that just as structures (e.g., classification schemes) enable actions (e.g., information retrieval, knowledge transfer), actions enable structures. For this theoretical stew to influence practice, rules and resources-the structures of a knowledge organization scheme or system-must both support self-reflection and needs for consistency and adaptability. The virtuality of the developing electronic information world suggests the possibility of both coexisting through, for instance, mappings or crosswalks

0.0034856133 = product of:
  0.027884906 = sum of:
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 5213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=5213,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 5213, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5213)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0033217126 = product of:
  0.0265737 = sum of:
    0.0265737 = product of:
      0.0531474 = sum of:
        0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0531474 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This study considers the possibility of utilizing the categories employed by researchers within a subject domain as one approach for mapping the knowledge organization of that domain. The idea is tested using a sample of research reports dealing with the information behavior of people (e.g., physician, nurses, and patients) in the health care domain. It was relatively easy to identify category systems within the sample of texts. Consideration of the configuration of category systems employed across the analyzed texts shows a pattern of broad consistency. Many of the research reports employed some version of a diagnosis, treatment, and referral category system related to the information behavior of physicians, though there were many variations on this general category breakout. There were also many uses of alternative category systems (e.g., specialty area, information types, and dilemmas) that suggest the applicability and use of alternative views of the situations being studied. The key challenges for the future appear to be the specification of relations among category systems of different research reports and visualization of the identified rich relationships including the evolution of category systems over time

0.0016778135 = product of:
  0.013422508 = sum of:
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 294, 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=294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:51:12