Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.08917837 = product of:
  0.17835674 = sum of:
    0.17835674 = product of:
      0.35671347 = sum of:
        0.35671347 = weight(_text_:perception in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35671347 = score(doc=4996,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            1.1100436 = fieldWeight in 4996, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4996)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present the results of a study of user's perception of relevance of documents. The aim is to study experimentally how users' perception varies depending on the form that retrieved documents are presented. Documents retrieved in response to a query are presented to users in a variety of ways, from full text to a machine spoken query-biased automatically-generated summary, and the difference in users' perception of relevance is studied. The experimental results suggest that the effectiveness of advanced multimedia Information Retrieval applications may be affected by the low level of users' perception of relevance of retrieved documents

0.05920909 = product of:
  0.11841818 = sum of:
    0.11841818 = product of:
      0.23683636 = sum of:
        0.23683636 = weight(_text_:perception in 5239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23683636 = score(doc=5239,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.73700243 = fieldWeight in 5239, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In "Part 4. Cognitive Styles in Information Seeking,'' where Ford is the primary author, the results of the application of the Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis and the Pask's holist/serialist portion of the Ford's Study Process Questionnaire to the 111 U.K. participants. were correlated using Spearman's coefficient with reports of focused thinking, degree of change in the intermediary's perception of the problem and personal knowledge, problem stage, degree of differentiating activity, change in problem perception, engagement in exploring activity, changes in questioning, valuing of serendipitous information, and other variables. The results would indicate that field independent individuals report clearer more focused thinking, see themselves in an earlier problem stage, and report higher levels of change in perception of the problem. Holists value serendipity and report engagement in Kuhlthau's exploring stage. They are seen by intermediaries as exhibiting fewer changes in questioning behavior. A fifth section will appear in a later issue.

0.056973968 = product of:
  0.113947935 = sum of:
    0.113947935 = product of:
      0.22789587 = sum of:
        0.22789587 = weight(_text_:perception in 2819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22789587 = score(doc=2819,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.7091809 = fieldWeight in 2819, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.056973968 = product of:
  0.113947935 = sum of:
    0.113947935 = product of:
      0.22789587 = sum of:
        0.22789587 = weight(_text_:perception in 2068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22789587 = score(doc=2068,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.7091809 = fieldWeight in 2068, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study presents a test of the Anxiety-Expectation Mediation (AEM) model of library anxiety. The AEM model contains variables that are directly or indirectly related to information search performance, as measured by students' scores an their research proposals. This model posits that library anxiety and self-perception serve as factors that mediate the relationship between performance in writing a research proposal and other cognitive, personality, and demographic variables. The model was tested using 225 graduate students enrolled in several sections of an introductory-level course at a midsouthern university. Structural equation modeling techniques supported the AEM model. In particular, library anxiety and research achievement were reciprocally related. Furthermore, library anxiety mediated the relationship between research performance and the following variables: age, grade point average, learning style, academic procrastination, and self-perception. The path analysis also revealed a direct, positive path from self-perception to research performance. In addition, self-perception moderated the relationship between research achievement and academic procrastination, perfectionism, and hope. The AEM model of library anxiety suggests that Wine's (1980) Cognitive-Attentional-Interference theory, Onwuegbuzie, Jiao, and Bostick's (in press) ILP model of library anxiety, and Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy theory can be applied to the library and information context. Findings are discussed within the framework of current social-psychological models of educational achievement.

0.03988178 = product of:
  0.07976356 = sum of:
    0.07976356 = product of:
      0.15952712 = sum of:
        0.15952712 = weight(_text_:perception in 3899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15952712 = score(doc=3899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.49642664 = fieldWeight in 3899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As libraries face increasing competition in providing information, we must insure that our library systems are usable, effective, efficient, and perhaps even enticing. How do librarians know that systems give users what they need and want? One way is usability testing. Usability testing has been around the computer industry for at least a decade, but library use of the method is relatively new. It has been a common perception that library systems were designed for librarians. Even if the user was considered, it was from the perspective of librarians who worked with the user. Those perceptions were anecdotal, and librarians frequently disagreed with one another about user behavior and knowledge.

0.034184385 = product of:
  0.06836877 = sum of:
    0.06836877 = product of:
      0.13673754 = sum of:
        0.13673754 = weight(_text_:perception in 1435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13673754 = score(doc=1435,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.42550856 = fieldWeight in 1435, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1435)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.034184385 = product of:
  0.06836877 = sum of:
    0.06836877 = product of:
      0.13673754 = sum of:
        0.13673754 = weight(_text_:perception in 1547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13673754 = score(doc=1547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.42550856 = fieldWeight in 1547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines the problem of a compelling online news delivery system by focusing on how mass media audiences and online users differ in their assessment of news. It employed a 2-wave USA national survey to study the perception of interactivity in mass media and computer networks and its relationship to the assessment of news. The 1st wave looked a national probability sample, ahile the 2nd targeted viewers of NBC Nightly News who responded to the show via e-mail. NBC respondents rated mass media to be less interactive, while they rated computer communication more interactive than the national sample. The NBC group also rated mass media news less important and of lower quality than did the national sample. Interactivity ratings did not predict mass media credibility assessment for either group. However, respondents who defined interactivity as cybernetic feedback or who contacted NBC by e-mail rated computer communication to be more credible than thos who did not

0.034184385 = product of:
  0.06836877 = sum of:
    0.06836877 = product of:
      0.13673754 = sum of:
        0.13673754 = weight(_text_:perception in 2818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13673754 = score(doc=2818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.42550856 = fieldWeight in 2818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.034184385 = product of:
  0.06836877 = sum of:
    0.06836877 = product of:
      0.13673754 = sum of:
        0.13673754 = weight(_text_:perception in 2658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13673754 = score(doc=2658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.42550856 = fieldWeight in 2658, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of thesaurus-enhanced search tools is an the increase. This paper provides an insight into end-users interaction with and perceptions of such tools. In particular the overlap between users' initial query formulation and thesaurus structures is investigated. This investigation involved the performance of genuine search tasks an the CAB Abstracts database by academic users in the domain of veterinary medicine. The perception of these users regarding the nature and usefulness of the terms suggested from the thesaurus during the search interaction is reported. The results indicated that around 80% of terms entered were matched either exactly or partially to thesaurus terms. Users found over 90% of the terms suggested to be close to their search topics and where terms were selected they indicated that around 50% were to support a 'narrowing down' activity. These findings have implications for the design of thesaurus-enhanced interfaces.

0.032229345 = product of:
  0.06445869 = sum of:
    0.06445869 = product of:
      0.12891738 = sum of:
        0.12891738 = weight(_text_:perception in 280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12891738 = score(doc=280,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.4011733 = fieldWeight in 280, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

More complex contexts of information seeking require extensive thinking that involves an intellectual leap which carries the user `beyond the information given' (Bruner, 1973) to the construction of something `new'. According to Arnheim (1969) such thinking is directly affected by one's visual perception of the world and he argues that the most productive thinking results from this imagery. The application of visual or mental imagery to the relationships and structure in information seeking situations may be thought of as a constructive strategy for making meaning. This paper explores the use of mental imagery in the constructive process of information seeking. For the individual, the meaning of information is not inherent in the information itself but in his or her perception of it and how it fits into an image of the world or personal construct system (Boulding, 1961; Kelly, 1963). The use of imagery may facilitate a user's mental image of information and its relation to previously acquired knowledge and, thus, also facilitate new construction during the information seeking process. Mental imagery has been found to play an important role in creativity and problem solving. Shepard (1978) argues that some of the most creative thoughts and solutions which humans devise are those which are not confined to expression within linear verbal communication but rather spring from mental imagery that embraces a spatial approach to problem solving. Mental imagery is more concrete and visually constructive in nature than verbal methods of problem solving. This paper explores the role of imagery in the constructive tasks of problem solving and learning in the information seeking process.

0.028486984 = product of:
  0.056973968 = sum of:
    0.056973968 = product of:
      0.113947935 = sum of:
        0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113947935 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Getty art history information program carried out a two-year project to study how humanities scholars operate as end users of online databases. Visiting scholars at the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities in Santa Monica, California, were offered the opportunity to so unlimited subsidized searching of DIALOG databases. This first report from the project analyzes the vocabulary terms twenty-two scholars used in their natural language descriptions of their information needs and in their online searches. The data were extracted from 165 natural language statements and 1.068 search terms. Vocabulary categories used by humanities scholars were found to differ markedly from those used in the sciences, a fact that imposes distinctive demands on thesaurus development and the design of online information systems. Humanities scholars searched for far more named individuals, geographical terms, chronological terms, and discipline terms than was the case in a comparative science sample. The analysis provides substantial support for the growing perception that information needs of humanities scholars are distinct from those of scholars in other fields, and that the design of information-providing systems for these scholars must take their unique qualitites into account

0.02374054 = product of:
  0.04748108 = sum of:
    0.04748108 = product of:
      0.09496216 = sum of:
        0.09496216 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09496216 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.02374054 = product of:
  0.04748108 = sum of:
    0.04748108 = product of:
      0.09496216 = sum of:
        0.09496216 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09496216 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.022789588 = product of:
  0.045579176 = sum of:
    0.045579176 = product of:
      0.09115835 = sum of:
        0.09115835 = weight(_text_:perception in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09115835 = score(doc=2659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.28367236 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.020349033 = product of:
  0.040698066 = sum of:
    0.040698066 = product of:
      0.08139613 = sum of:
        0.08139613 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08139613 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.013566022 = product of:
  0.027132044 = sum of:
    0.027132044 = product of:
      0.054264087 = sum of:
        0.054264087 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054264087 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.013566022 = product of:
  0.027132044 = sum of:
    0.027132044 = product of:
      0.054264087 = sum of:
        0.054264087 = weight(_text_:22 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054264087 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:07:29

0.013566022 = product of:
  0.027132044 = sum of:
    0.027132044 = product of:
      0.054264087 = sum of:
        0.054264087 = weight(_text_:22 in 5299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054264087 = score(doc=5299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:17:44

0.013566022 = product of:
  0.027132044 = sum of:
    0.027132044 = product of:
      0.054264087 = sum of:
        0.054264087 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054264087 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 18:50:43

0.01187027 = product of:
  0.02374054 = sum of:
    0.02374054 = product of:
      0.04748108 = sum of:
        0.04748108 = weight(_text_:22 in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04748108 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The degree of variability in the percentage of subject searching in an online public access catalog (OPAC) among branch libraries of one university was studied. A full semester's worth of transactions was analyzed, not sampled. The time units used were hour of the day, day of the week, and week of the semester. The findings show that subject searching varies from a low of 22% to a high of 74% over the hours of a day. Variability for the days of the week ranged from 17% to 64%, and for the weeks of the semester variability ranged from 12% to 70%. Valuable management information on the utilization of the OPAC within each brach library and among all the branch libraries is provided through numerous charts and graphs.