Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=3594,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Both user involvement and system support play important roles in applying search tactics. To apply search tactics in the information retrieval (IR) processes, users make decisions and take actions in the search process, while IR systems assist them by providing different system features. After analyzing 61 participants' information searching diaries and questionnaires we identified various types of user involvement and system support in applying different types of search tactics. Based on quantitative analysis, search tactics were classified into 3 groups: user-dominated, system-dominated, and balanced tactics. We further explored types of user involvement and types of system support in applying search tactics from the 3 groups. The findings show that users and systems play major roles in applying user-dominated and system-dominated tactics, respectively. When applying balanced tactics, users and systems must collaborate closely with each other. In this article, we propose a model that illustrates user involvement and system support as they occur in user-dominated tactics, system-dominated tactics, and balanced tactics. Most important, IR system design implications are discussed to facilitate effective and efficient applications of the 3 groups of search tactics.

0.011551105 = product of:
  0.02310221 = sum of:
    0.02310221 = product of:
      0.04620442 = sum of:
        0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 3821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04620442 = score(doc=3821,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 3821, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3821)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Key terms related to information searching and search models are defined. A historic context is provided to illustrate the evolution of the four main digital environments that users interact with in their search process to offer readers background information regarding the transition from manual information systems to computer-based information retrieval (IR) systems, as well as the transition from intermediary searching to end-user searching. Emphasis is placed on the review of different levels of information searching from search tactics/moves, search strategies, and usage patterns, to search models and associated factors in relation to task, user knowledge structure, IR system design, and social-organization context. Search models are further classified into two types, with one type illustrating information search process (ISP) and the other type emphasizing the factors that influence the process. In addition, unsolved problems and future research are discussed and suggested.

0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=2737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2737, 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=2737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 12:49:20

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Multisession successive information searches are common but little research has focused on quantitative analysis. This article enhances our understanding of successive information searches by employing an experimental method to observe whether and how the behavioral characteristics of searchers statistically significantly changed over sessions. It focuses on a specific type of successive search called transmuting successive searches, in which searchers learn about and gradually refine their information problems during the course of the information search. The results show that searchers' behavioral characteristics indeed exhibit different patterns in different sessions. The identification of the behavioral characteristics can help information retrieval systems to detect stages or sessions of the information search process. The findings also help validate a theoretical framework to explain successive searches and suggest system requirements for supporting the associated search behavior. The study is one of the first to not only test for statistical significance among research propositions concerning successive searches but to also apply the research principles of implicit relevance feedback to successive searches.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 2739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=2739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007700737 = product of:
  0.015401474 = sum of:
    0.015401474 = product of:
      0.030802948 = sum of:
        0.030802948 = weight(_text_:systems in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030802948 = score(doc=5046,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 5046, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Human interpretation of images during image annotation is complicated, but most existing interactive image annotation systems are generally operated based on social tagging, while ignoring that tags are insufficient to convey image semantics. Hence, it is critical to study the nature of image annotation behaviors and process. This study investigated annotation tactics, transitions, strategies and their efficiency during the image annotation process. A total of 90 participants were recruited to annotate nine pictures in three emotional dimensions with three interactive annotation methods. Data collected from annotation logs and verbal protocols were analyzed by applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings of this study show that the cognitive process of human interpretation of images is rather complex, which reveals a probable bias in research involving image relevance feedback. Participants preferred applying scroll bar (Scr) and image comparison (Cim) tactics comparing with rating tactic (Val), and they did fewer fine tuning activities, which reflects the influence of perceptual level and users' cognitive load during image annotation. Annotation tactic transition analysis showed that Cim was more likely to be adopted at the beginning of each phase, and the most remarkable transition was from Cim to Scr. By applying sequence analysis, the authors found 10 most commonly used sequences representing four types of annotation strategies, including Single tactic strategy, Tactic combination strategy, Fix mode strategy and Shift mode strategy. Furthermore, two patterns, "quarter decreasing" and "transition cost," were identified based on time data, and both multiple tactics (e.g., the combination of Cim and Scr) and fine tuning activities were recognized as efficient tactic applications. Annotation patterns found in this study suggest more research needs to be done considering the need for multi-interactive methods and their influence. The findings of this study generated detailed and useful guidance for the interactive design in image annotation systems, including recommending efficient tactic applications in different phases, highlighting the most frequently applied tactics and transitions, and avoiding unnecessary transitions.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 4097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=4097,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4097, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4097)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although many studies have identified search tactics, few studies have explored tactic transitions. This study investigated the transitions of search tactics during the Web-based search process. Bringing their own 60 search tasks, 31 participants, representing the general public with different demographic characteristics, participated in the study. Data collected from search logs and verbal protocols were analyzed by applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The findings of this study show that participants exhibited some unique Web search tactics. They overwhelmingly employed accessing and evaluating tactics; they used fewer tactics related to modifying search statements, monitoring the search process, organizing search results, and learning system features. The contributing factors behind applying most and least frequently employed search tactics are in relation to users' efforts, trust in information retrieval (IR) systems, preference, experience, and knowledge as well as limitation of the system design. A matrix of search-tactic transitions was created to show the probabilities of transitions from one tactic to another. By applying fifth-order Markov chain, the results also presented the most common search strategies representing patterns of tactic transition occurring at the beginning, middle, and ending phases within one search session. The results of this study generated detailed and useful guidance for IR system design to support the most frequently applied tactics and transitions, to reduce unnecessary transitions, and support transitions at different phases.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 3970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=3970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Introduction to digital libraries - Digital library initiatives and international projects - Collection development - Techniques and technologies for multimedia storage and retrieval - Digitization - Knowledge representation and organization - Digital Library Content Management Systems - Interface design and evaluation - Sustainability and preservation - User needs and information retrieval - Evaluation of digital libraries - Impact, challenges, and trends for the future