Search (1352 results, page 1 of 68)

0.09986429 = sum of:
  0.079515256 = product of:
    0.23854576 = sum of:
      0.23854576 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23854576 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42444503 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020349033 = product of:
    0.040698066 = sum of:
      0.040698066 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040698066 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

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

0.078024715 = product of:
  0.15604943 = sum of:
    0.15604943 = sum of:
      0.12891738 = weight(_text_:perception in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12891738 = score(doc=2881,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.4011733 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
      0.027132044 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027132044 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.

Date

22. 6.2009 9:15:45

0.07536948 = product of:
  0.15073895 = sum of:
    0.15073895 = product of:
      0.3014779 = sum of:
        0.3014779 = weight(_text_:perception in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3014779 = score(doc=2595,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.93815815 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to explore the theory and practice of knowledge organization and its necessary connection to human perception, and shows a solution of the potential ones. Design/methodology/approach - The author attempts to survey the problem of concept-building and extension, as well as the determination of semantics in different aspects. The purpose is to find criteria for the choice of the solution that best incorporates users into the design cycles of knowledge organization systems. Findings - It is widely agreed that cognition provides the basis for concept-building; however, at the next stage of processing there is a debate. Fundamentally, what is the connection between perception and the superior cognitive processes? The perceptual method does not separate these two but rather considers them united, with perception permeating cognition. By contrast, the linguistic method considers perception as an information-receiving system. Separate from, and following, perception, the cognitive subsystems then perform information and data processing, leading to both knowledge organization and representation. We assume by that model that top-level concepts emerge from knowledge organization and representation. This paper points obvious connection of visual imagery and the internet; perceptual access of knowledge organization and information retrieval. There are some practical and characteristic solutions for the visualization of information without demand of completeness. Research limitations/implications - Librarians need to identify those semantic characteristics which stimulate a similar conceptual image both in the mind of the librarian and in the mind of the user. Originality/value - For a fresh perspective, an understanding of perception is required as well.

0.0739315 = product of:
  0.147863 = sum of:
    0.147863 = sum of:
      0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 1397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.113947935 = score(doc=1397,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 1397, 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=1397)
      0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 1397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033915058 = score(doc=1397,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1397, 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=1397)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The "Screen Design Manual" provides designers of interactive media with a practical working guide for preparing and presenting information that is suitable for both their target groups and the media they are using. It describes background information and relationships, clarifies them with the help of examples, and encourages further development of the language of digital media. In addition to the basics of the psychology of perception and learning, ergonomics, communication theory, imagery research, and aesthetics, the book also explores the design of navigation and orientation elements. Guidelines and checklists, along with the unique presentation of the book, support the application of information in practice.

Date

22. 3.2008 14:29:25

0.0739315 = product of:
  0.147863 = sum of:
    0.147863 = sum of:
      0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.113947935 = score(doc=153,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 153, 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=153)
      0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033915058 = score(doc=153,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 153, 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=153)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0739315 = product of:
  0.147863 = sum of:
    0.147863 = sum of:
      0.113947935 = weight(_text_:perception in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.113947935 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.35459045 = fieldWeight in 1721, 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=1721)
      0.033915058 = weight(_text_:22 in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033915058 = score(doc=1721,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1721, 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=1721)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to critically deconstruct the term engagement as it applies to peoples' experiences with technology. Through an extensive, critical multidisciplinary literature review and exploratory study of users of Web searching, online shopping, Webcasting, and gaming applications, we conceptually and operationally defined engagement. Building on past research, we conducted semistructured interviews with the users of four applications to explore their perception of being engaged with the technology. Results indicate that engagement is a process comprised of four distinct stages: point of engagement, period of sustained engagement, disengagement, and reengagement. Furthermore, the process is characterized by attributes of engagement that pertain to the user, the system, and user-system interaction. We also found evidence of the factors that contribute to nonengagement. Emerging from this research is a definition of engagement - a term not defined consistently in past work - as a quality of user experience characterized by attributes of challenge, positive affect, endurability, aesthetic and sensory appeal, attention, feedback, variety/novelty, interactivity, and perceived user control. This exploratory work provides the foundation for future work to test the conceptual model in various application areas, and to develop methods to measure engaging user experiences.

Date

21. 3.2008 13:39:22

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.

0.059145197 = product of:
  0.118290395 = sum of:
    0.118290395 = sum of:
      0.09115835 = weight(_text_:perception in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09115835 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.28367236 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
      0.027132044 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027132044 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17531638 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05006422 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A large number of digital images are available and accessible due to recent advances in technology. Since image retrieval systems are designed to meet user information needs, it seems apparent that image retrieval system design and implementation should take into account user-based aspects such as information use patterns and relevance judgments. However, little is known about what criteria users employ when making relevance judgments and which textual representations of the image help them make relevance judgments in their situational context. Thus, this study attempted to investigate the criteria which image users apply when making judgments about the relevance of an image. This research was built on prior work by Barry, Schamber and others which examined relevance criteria for textual and non-textual documents, exploring the extent to which these criteria apply to visual documents and the extent to which new and different criteria apply. Data were collected from unstructured interviews and questionnaires. Quantitative statistical methods were employed to analyze the importance of relevance criteria to see how much each criterion affected the user's judgments. The study involved 38 faculty and graduate students of American history in 1999 in a local setting, using the Library of Congress American memory photo archives. The study found that the user's perception of topicality was still the most important factor across the information-seeking stages. However, the users decided on retrieved items according to a variety of criteria other than topicality. Image quality and clarity was important. Users also searched for relevant images on the basis of title, date, subject descriptors, and notes provided. The conclusions of this study will be useful in image database design to assist users in conducting image searches. This study can be helpful to future relevance studies in information system design and evaluation.

Date

15. 8.2004 19:22:19

0.056973968 = product of:
  0.113947935 = sum of:
    0.113947935 = product of:
      0.22789587 = sum of:
        0.22789587 = weight(_text_:perception in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22789587 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.7091809 = fieldWeight in 892, 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=892)
      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.

0.056973968 = product of:
  0.113947935 = sum of:
    0.113947935 = product of:
      0.22789587 = sum of:
        0.22789587 = weight(_text_:perception in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22789587 = score(doc=2509,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.7091809 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Perception is a crucial element in the viability of any knowledge organization system because it acts as a filter that provides contextual information about phenomena, including potential categorical membership. Perception is moderated culturally, but "social" systems exercise little or no cultural conformity. "Every day classification" is rife throughout human experience; but classification arises as a system of formal constraints that embody cultural assumptions about the categories that are the products of human cognition. Noesis is a perceptual component of Husserl's phenomenological approach to human experience. How we perceive a thing is filtered by our experiential feelings about it. The purpose of this research is to increase understanding of the role of cognition in every day classification by developing a fuller profile of perception. Photographs of mailboxes (a mundane, every-day example) from different locales are compared to demonstrate the noetic process. Tag clouds are analyzed to demonstrate the kinds of perceptual differences that suggest different user perceptions among those contributing tags.

0.053010173 = product of:
  0.10602035 = sum of:
    0.10602035 = product of:
      0.31806102 = sum of:
        0.31806102 = weight(_text_:3a in 140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31806102 = score(doc=140,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42444503 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 140, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=140)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl. auch: https://studylibde.com/doc/13053640/richard-schrodt. Vgl. auch: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2FGermanistik%2Fschrodt%2Fvorlesung%2Fwissenschaftssprache.doc&usg=AOvVaw1lDLDR6NFf1W0-oC9mEUJf.

0.049340907 = product of:
  0.098681815 = sum of:
    0.098681815 = product of:
      0.19736363 = sum of:
        0.19736363 = weight(_text_:perception in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19736363 = score(doc=2958,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.6141687 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to present selected findings of a recent study of serendipity in information seeking, exploring the paradox of control inherent in the concept of "seeking serendipity". Design/methodology/approach - After providing an overview of the research study, the paper locates the research findings in the context of the literature. The discussion explores the research findings in relation to both the paradox of control and the related concept of "seeking serendipity". Findings - The definition/description of serendipity is examined, the concept of process-perception duality is introduced, and links with the literature are explored. The discussion reassesses the paradox of control in light of the research findings, raising the possibility that information literacy educators have a role to play in developing the perception aspect of serendipity. Practical implications - The paper proposes that, despite the possibly uncomfortable challenges presented by the paradox of control, serendipity deserves more recognition in professional practice. Increased acknowledgement and understanding of serendipity may enable professional practitioners to function more effectively in the unpredictable, dynamic environment that informs the reality of information seeking. Originality/value - The paper adds to the limited existing empirical research investigating serendipity, increasing both academic and practical understanding of the phenomenon. In particular, the introduction of the concept of process-perception duality provides a useful grounding for future research.

0.048344012 = product of:
  0.096688025 = sum of:
    0.096688025 = product of:
      0.19337605 = sum of:
        0.19337605 = weight(_text_:perception in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19337605 = score(doc=333,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.6017599 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Human information-seeking behavior is complicated. Activity theory is a powerful theoretical instrument to untangle the "complications." Based on activity theory, a comprehensive framework is proposed in Part I (Y. Xu, 2007) of this report to describe interactive information retrieval (IIR) behavior. A set of propositions is also proposed to describe the mechanisms governing users' cognitive activity and the interaction between users' cognitive states and manifested retrieval behavior. An empirical study is carried out to verify the propositions. The authors' experimental simulation of 81 participants in one search session indicates the propositions are largely supported. Their findings indicate IIR behavior is planned. Users adopt a divide-and-conquer strategy in information retrieval. The planning of information retrieval activity is also partially manifested in query revision tactics. Users learn from previously read documents. A user's interaction with a system ultimately changes the user's information need and the resulting relevance judgment, but the dynamics of topicality perception and novelty perception occur at different paces.

0.046383902 = product of:
  0.092767805 = sum of:
    0.092767805 = product of:
      0.2783034 = sum of:
        0.2783034 = weight(_text_:3a in 306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2783034 = score(doc=306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42444503 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.65568775 = fieldWeight in 306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=306)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5386707&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5386707.

0.040286683 = product of:
  0.080573365 = sum of:
    0.080573365 = product of:
      0.16114673 = sum of:
        0.16114673 = weight(_text_:perception in 2791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16114673 = score(doc=2791,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.50146663 = fieldWeight in 2791, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2791)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This introductory article explores how the use of information affects the effectiveness of early warning systems. By effectiveness, we refer to the capacity of the system to detect and decide on the existence of a threat. There are two aspects to effectiveness: (a) being able to see the evidence that is indicative of a threat and (b) making the decision, based on the weight of the evidence, to warn that the threat exists. In early warning, information use is encumbered by cues that are fallible and equivocal. Cues that are true indicators of a threat are obscured in a cloud of events generated by chance. Moreover, policy makers face the difficult decision of whether to issue a warning based on the information received. Because the information is rarely complete or conclusive, such decisions have to consider the consequences of failing to warn or giving a false warning. We draw on sociocognitive theories of perception and judgment to analyze these two aspects of early warning: detection accuracy (How well does perception correspond to reality?) and decision sensitivity (How much evidence is needed to activate warning?) Using cognitive continuum theory, we examine how detection accuracy depends on the fit between the information needs profile of the threat and the information use environment of the warning system. Applying signal detection theory, we investigate how decision sensitivity depends on the assessment and balancing of the risks of misses and false alarms inherent in all early warning decision making.

0.03988178 = product of:
  0.07976356 = sum of:
    0.07976356 = product of:
      0.15952712 = sum of:
        0.15952712 = weight(_text_:perception in 5447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15952712 = score(doc=5447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.49642664 = fieldWeight in 5447, 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=5447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explores factors that have influenced library and information science education over the past two decades. Emphasis is placed on cataloging instruction and particularly cataloging as a required course. Identifies the introduction of new areas of study, corresponding curricular changes, and the nature of LIS faculty as influencing the role of cataloging in the professional education of librarians. An analysis is provided of the changing perception of the importance of cataloging in professional library education programs.

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.

0.03988178 = product of:
  0.07976356 = sum of:
    0.07976356 = product of:
      0.15952712 = sum of:
        0.15952712 = weight(_text_:perception in 5609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15952712 = score(doc=5609,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32135084 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4187727 = idf(docFreq=195, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05006422 = queryNorm
            0.49642664 = fieldWeight in 5609, 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=5609)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Constructivism is a theory of cognition based on the science of neurons that emphasizes the operational closeness and structure determination of the human perception and thinking processes. Learning as well is a self-acting, creative construction of knowledge. The learning process can be activated, but not directed by teaching efforts. The construction of knowledge is not only an individual mental process. On the one hand society itself constructs knowledge, on the other hand society is a result of constructions. The social constructivism, as conceived by P. Berger, T. Luckmann, J. Searle, K. Gergen, is especially inspiring for social science education. A differentiation between different forms of construction is suggested: reconstruction, deconstruction, self-construction, co-construction.