Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.040099498 = product of:
  0.080198996 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 1300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=1300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 1300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1300)
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=1300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 1300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Children represent an increasing group of web users. Some of the key problems that hamper their search experience is their limited vocabulary, their difficulty in using the right keywords, and the inappropriateness of their general-purpose query suggestions. In this work, we propose a method that uses tags from social media to suggest queries related to children's topics. Concretely, we propose a simple yet effective approach to bias a random walk defined on a bipartite graph of web resources and tags through keywords that are more commonly used to describe resources for children. We evaluate our method using a large query log sample of queries submitted by children. We show that our method outperforms by a large margin the query suggestions of modern search engines and state-of-the art query suggestions based on random walks. We improve further the quality of the ranking by combining the score of the random walk with topical and language modeling features to emphasize even more the child-related aspects of the query suggestions.

0.024918701 = product of:
  0.099674806 = sum of:
    0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 4060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099674806 = score(doc=4060,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 4060, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4060)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the information-seeking behavior of science and social science research scholars, including service effectiveness, satisfaction level on different type of sources and various methods adopted by the scholars for keeping up to date. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using a questionnaire survey of 200, randomly selected, PhD students of science and social science departments of four universities in Kerala, India. Findings - Although similarities exist between social science and science PhD students with regard to information-seeking behavior, there are significant differences as well. There is a significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of print journals and database collection which are very relevant to the research purposes. There is no significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of e-journals, the most used source for keeping up to date. The study proved that scholars of both the fields are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the library in keeping them up to date with latest developments. Originality/value - The study is based on actual situation and the result can be used for library service redesign for different types of users.

0.024918701 = product of:
  0.099674806 = sum of:
    0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099674806 = score(doc=3345,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many people turn to their social networks to find information through the practice of question and answering. We believe it is necessary to use different answering strategies based on the type of questions to accommodate the different information needs. In this research, we propose the ASK taxonomy that categorizes questions posted on social networking sites into three types according to the nature of the questioner's inquiry of accuracy, social, or knowledge. To automatically decide which answering strategy to use, we develop a predictive model based on ASK question types using question features from the perspectives of lexical, topical, contextual, and syntactic as well as answer features. By applying the classifier on an annotated data set, we present a comprehensive analysis to compare questions in terms of their word usage, topical interests, temporal and spatial restrictions, syntactic structure, and response characteristics. Our research results show that the three types of questions exhibited different characteristics in the way they are asked. Our automatic classification algorithm achieves an 83% correct labeling result, showing the value of the ASK taxonomy for the design of social question and answering systems.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 5419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=5419,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 5419, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5419)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Understanding users' search behavior has largely relied on the information available from search engine logs, which provide limited information about the contextual factors affecting users' behavior. Consequently, questions such as how users' intentions, task goals, and substances of the users' tasks affect search behavior, as well as what triggers information needs, remain largely unanswered. We report an experiment in which naturalistic information search behavior was captured by analyzing 24/7 continuous recordings of information on participants' computer screens. Written task diaries describing the participants' tasks were collected and used as real-life task contexts for further categorization. All search tasks were extracted and classified under various task categories according to users' intentions, task goals, and substances of the tasks. We investigated the effect of different task categories on three behavioral factors: search efforts, content-triggers, and application context. Our results suggest four findings: (i) Search activity is integrally associated with the users' creative processes. The content users have seen prior to searching more often triggers search, and is used as a query, within creative tasks. (ii) Searching within intellectual and creative tasks is more time-intensive, while search activity occurring as a part of daily routine tasks is associated with more frequent searching within a search task. (iii) Searching is more often induced from utility applications in tasks demanding a degree of intellectual effort. (iv) Users' leisure information-seeking activity is occurring inherently within social media services or comes from social communication platforms. The implications of our findings for information access and management systems are discussed.

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=536)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we present an in-home observation and in-context research study investigating how 38 adolescents aged 14-17 search on the Internet. We present the search trends adolescents display and develop a framework of search roles that these trends help define. We compare these trends and roles to similar trends and roles found in prior work with children ages 7, 9, and 11. We use these comparisons to make recommendations to adult stakeholders such as researchers, designers, and information literacy educators about the best ways to design search tools for children and adolescents, as well as how to use the framework of searching roles to find better methods of educating youth searchers. Major findings include the seven roles of adolescent searchers, and evidence that adolescents are social in their computer use, have a greater knowledge of sources than younger children, and that adolescents are less frustrated by searching tasks than younger children.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The large volumes of medical information available on the web may provide answers for a wide range of users attempting to solve health-related problems. While experts generally utilize reliable resources for diagnosis search and professional development, novices utilize different (social) web resources to obtain information that helps them manage their health or the health of people who they care for. A diverse number of related search topics address clinical diagnosis, advice searching, information sharing, connecting with experts, etc. This paper focuses on the extent to which expertise can impact clinical query formulation, document relevance assessment and retrieval performance in the context of tailoring retrieval models and systems to experts vs. non-experts. The results show that medical domain expertise 1) plays an important role in the lexical representations of information needs; 2) significantly influences the perception of relevance even among users with similar levels of expertise and 3) reinforces the idea that a single ground truth does not exist, thereby leading to the variability of system rankings with respect to the level of user's expertise. The findings of this study presents opportunities for the design of personalized health-related IR systems, but also for providing insights about the evaluation of such systems.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=3823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 3823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Online trolling has become increasingly prevalent and visible in online communities. Perceptions of and reactions to trolling behaviors varies significantly from one community to another, as trolling behaviors are contextual and vary across platforms and communities. Through an examination of seven trolling scenarios, this article intends to answer the following questions: how do trolling behaviors differ across contexts; how do perceptions of trolling differ from case to case; and what aspects of context of trolling are perceived to be important by the public? Based on focus groups and interview data, we discuss the ways in which community norms and demographics, technological features of platforms, and community boundaries are perceived to impact trolling behaviors. Two major contributions of the study include a codebook to support future analysis of trolling and formal concept analysis surrounding contextual perceptions of trolling.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate an existing set of search tasks in terms of their effectiveness as part of a "shared infrastructure" for conducting interactive IR research. Twenty search tasks that varied in their cognitive complexity and domain were assigned to 47 study participants; the 3,101 moves used to complete those tasks were then analyzed in terms of frequency of each type of move and the sequential patterns they formed. The cognitive complexity of the tasks influenced the number of moves used to complete the tasks, with the most complex (i.e., Create) tasks requiring more moves than tasks at other levels of complexity. Across the four domains, the Commerce tasks elicited more search moves per search. When sequences of moves were analyzed, seven patterns were identified; some of these patterns were associated with particular task characteristics. The findings suggest that search tasks can be designed to elicit particular types of search behaviors and, thus, allow researchers to focus attention on particular aspects of IR interactions.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=3623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 3623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to report findings from an exploratory study investigating the web interactions and technoliteracy of children in the early childhood years. Previous research has studied aspects of older children's technoliteracy and web searching; however, few studies have analyzed web search data from children younger than six years of age. Design/methodology/approach - The study explored the Google web searching and technoliteracy of young children who are enrolled in a "preparatory classroom" or kindergarten (the year before young children begin compulsory schooling in Queensland, Australia). Young children were video- and audio-taped while conducting Google web searches in the classroom. The data were qualitatively analysed to understand the young children's web search behaviour. Findings - The findings show that young children engage in complex web searches, including keyword searching and browsing, query formulation and reformulation, relevance judgments, successive searches, information multitasking and collaborative behaviours. The study results provide significant initial insights into young children's web searching and technoliteracy. Practical implications - The use of web search engines by young children is an important research area with implications for educators and web technologies developers. Originality/value - This is the first study of young children's interaction with a web search engine.

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=2727,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 2727, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2727)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Professional, workplace searching is different from general searching, because it is typically limited to specific facets and targeted to a single answer. We have developed the semantic component (SC) model, which is a search feature that allows searchers to structure and specify the search to context-specific aspects of the main topic of the documents. We have tested the model in an interactive searching study with family doctors with the purpose to explore doctors' querying behaviour, how they applied the means for specifying a search, and how these features contributed to the search outcome. In general, the doctors were capable of exploiting system features and search tactics during the searching. Most searchers produced well-structured queries that contained appropriate search facets. When searches failed it was not due to query structure or query length. Failures were mostly caused by the well-known vocabulary problem. The problem was exacerbated by using certain filters as Boolean filters. The best working queries were structured into 2-3 main facets out of 3-5 possible search facets, and expressed with terms reflecting the focal view of the search task. The findings at the same time support and extend previous results about query structure and exhaustivity showing the importance of selecting central search facets and express them from the perspective of search task. The SC model was applied in the highest performing queries except one. The findings suggest that the model might be a helpful feature to structure queries into central, appropriate facets, and in returning highly relevant documents.

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25. 1.2016 18:46:22

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5493, 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=5493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=5842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5842, 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=5842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.003138204 = product of:
  0.012552816 = sum of:
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = 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)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.002353653 = product of:
  0.009414612 = sum of:
    0.009414612 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018829225 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22