Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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

0.021210661 = product of:
  0.042421322 = sum of:
    0.042421322 = product of:
      0.084842645 = sum of:
        0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084842645 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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

0.016505018 = product of:
  0.033010036 = sum of:
    0.033010036 = product of:
      0.06602007 = sum of:
        0.06602007 = weight(_text_:systems in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06602007 = score(doc=2070,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines some of the theories that have evolved to explain the mental processes required for the use of information systems. Categorizes research in this area into system oriented and user oriented studies and reviews this research. Describes a sample of methodologies used for examining users and their information seeking behaviour. Concludes with a discussion of the implications of these theories and methods for librarians and information specialists

Footnote

Part of an issue devoted to electronic resources and their use in libraries, from the viewpoint of reference services, with an emphasis on the Internet and Geographic Information Systems

0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=2747,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2747, 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=2747)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:54:15

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 3319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=3319,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3319, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

No prior research has been identified that investigates the causal factors for workplace exploratory search task performance. The impact of user, task, and environmental factors on user satisfaction and task performance was investigated through a mixed methods study with 26 experienced information professionals using enterprise search in an oil and gas enterprise. Some participants found 75% of high-value items, others found none, with an average of 27%. No association was found between self-reported search expertise and task performance, with a tendency for many participants to overestimate their search expertise. Successful searchers may have more accurate mental models of both search systems and the information space. Organizations may not have effective exploratory search task performance feedback loops, a lack of learning. This may be caused by management bias towards technology, not capability, a lack of systems thinking. Furthermore, organizations may not "know" they "don't know" their true level of search expertise, a lack of knowing. A metamodel is presented identifying the causal factors for workplace exploratory search task performance. Semistructured qualitative interviews with search staff from the defense, pharmaceutical, and aerospace sectors indicates the potential transferability of the finding that organizations may not know their search expertise levels.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 2334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=2334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2334, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Much of the research conducted into young people's information seeking has taken place in schools. These organisations afford access to hundreds of diverse youngsters. They are accessible, and pupils are effectively pre-classified for the researcher. Factors within a school that may affect information-seeking behaviour can be explored. Nevertheless, it can be difficult to secure all appropriate permissions for the work. The timing of data collection can be problematic and the pupil population may not include all groups of interest. The investigator must also decide on the method(s) used for collecting data from the youngsters. Several lend themselves to developing an understanding of how far the individuals under scrutiny use particular sources, systems or organisations. Others are more effective for exploring the strategies inquirers employ when exploiting materials. The investigator must select the method that appears best equipped to deliver a satisfactory answer to the research question.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 450, 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=450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This second part of a two-part article establishes a model of the mediating factors that influence student information behavior concerning the electronic or digital information sources used to support learning. This part discusses the findings of the Joint Information Systems Committee User Behavior Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (1999-2004) and development of a model that includes both the individual (micro) and organizational (macro) factors affecting student information behavior. The macro factors are information resource design, information and learning technology infrastructure, availability and constraints to access, policies and funding, and organizational leadership and culture. The micro factors are information literacy, academics' information behavior, search strategies, discipline and curriculum, support and training, and pedagogy. We conclude that the mediating factors interact in unexpected ways and that further research is needed to clarify how those interactions, particularly between the macro and micro factors, operate.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 2034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=2034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2034, 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=2034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined the search behavior of 10 students as they completed assigned exercises for an online professional course in expert searching. The research objective was to identify, describe, and hypothesize about features of the behavior that are indicative of procedural knowledge gained during guided instruction. Log-data of search interaction were coded using a conceptual framework focused on components of search practice hypothesized to organize an expert searcher's attention during search. The coded data were analyzed using a measure of pointwise mutual information and state-transition analysis. Results of the study provide important insight for future investigation of domain-independent search expertise and for the design of systems that assist searchers in gaining expertise.

0.0070702205 = product of:
  0.014140441 = sum of:
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028280882 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 286, 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=286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2002 8:51:28

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 449, 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=449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This two-part article establishes a model of the mediating factors that influence student information behavior concerning electronic or digital information sources that support their learning. The first part reviews the literature that underpinned the development of the research methodology for the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) User Behavior Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, as well as the literature that has subsequently helped to develop the model over the 5 years the Framework operated in the United Kingdom, in five cycles of research that were adjusted to meet the emerging needs of the JISC at the time. The literature review attempts to synthesize the two main perspectives in the research studies: (a) smallscale studies of student information behavior; and (b) the studies that focus on the quantitative usage of particular electronic information services in universities, often including implications for training and support. As the review indicates, there are gaps in the evidence concerning the browsing and selection strategies of undergraduate students and the interaction of some of the mediating influences on information behavior. The Framework developed a multimethod, qualitative and quantitative methodology for the continued monitoring of user behavior. This article discusses the methods used and the projectmanagement challenges involved, and concludes that at the outset, intended impacts need to be specified carefully, and that funding needs to be committed at that point for a longitudinal study. A research project on information behavior, intended to inform current policymaking on infrastructure provision, is inherently difficult as behavior changes lag behind provision.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 285, 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=285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Household Information Systems (HIS) project in Queen Margaret College was funded to explore the use of new media in a group of Edinburgh households (Davenport & Higgins, 1995). One of the motivations of the HIS 'programme' was to find a suitable theoretical and/or exploratory framework, which takes account of multiple aspects of behaviour surrounding technologies, and thus avoids assumptions about their role in information-seeking or other isolated activities. A focus on single activities would occlude knowledge of other motivations: bonding, killing time, defining boundaries. In Phase One, `information management' rather than `information seeking' was used as a conceptual framework, embracing work on the `life cycle' of ICTs as illustrated by Kopytoffs `biography of things' approach (1986), Johnson's cultural circuit (1986), research on households as micro-organisations by McCrone and his colleagues (1994), and work by Silverstone and others on ICTs in the home as tools for internal and external adaptation (Silverstone, 1994, Silverstone et al 1994). The `management' framework has been productive - Phase One allowed us to identify patterns of ICT acquisition and deployment in the home, and, more interestingly, structures of appropriation which reflect rules, roles and responsibilities in individual households. These constitute what may be called a `reproduction lattice' (adapting terminology used by Kling (1987) in his analysis of the `web of computing' in organisations), a structure which captures the political and cultural economy of a household. Phase One's findings are consistent with those of other researchers working in the area of domestic consumption of ICTs but a major limitation of the work is the homogeneous nature of the respondents. Among our Edinburgh 'household managers', internal culture was a more compelling explanation for use than technical functionality.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 625, 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=625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article reports a field study which examined the mental models of 80 undergraduates seeking information for either a history or psychology course essay when they were in an early, exploration stage of researching their essay. This group is presently at a disadvantage when using thesaurus-type schemes in indexes and online search engines because there is a disconnect between how domain novice users of IR systems represent a topic space and how this space is represented in the standard IR system thesaurus. The study attempted to (a) ascertain the coding language used by the 80 undergraduates in the study to mentally represent their topic and then (b) align the mental models with the hierarchical structure found in many thesauri. The intervention focused the undergraduates' thinking about their topic from a topic statement to a thesis statement. The undergraduates were asked to produce three mental model diagrams for their real-life course essay at the beginning, middle, and end of the interview, for a total of 240 mental model diagrams, from which we created a 12-category mental model classification scheme. Findings indicate that at the end of the intervention, (a) the percentage of vertical mental models increased from 24 to 35% of all mental models; but that (b) 3rd-year students had fewer vertical mental models than did 1st-year undergraduates in the study, which is counterintuitive. The results indicate that there is justification for pursuing our research based on the hypothesis that rotating a domain novice's mental model into a vertical position would make it easier for him or her to cognitively connect with the thesaurus's hierarchical representation of the topic area.