Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032703765 = product of:
  0.06540753 = sum of:
    0.06540753 = sum of:
      0.03738941 = weight(_text_:searching in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03738941 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
      0.02801812 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02801812 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 642, 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=642)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) research has developed considerably since the 1950's to include consideration of more cognitive, interactive and iterative processes during the interaction between humans and IR or Web systems (Ingwersen, 1992, 1996). Interactive search sessions by humans with IR systems have been depicted as interactive IR models (Saracevic, 1997). Human-IR system interaction is also modeled as taking place within the context of broader human information behavior (HIB) processes (Spink et al., 2002). Research into the human or cognitive (user modeling) aspects of IR is a growing body of research on user interactivity, task performance and measures for observing user interactivity. The task context and situational characteristics of users' searches and evaluation have also been identified as key elements in a user's interaction with an IR system (Cool and Spink, 2002; Vakkari, 2003). Major theorized interactive IR models have been proposed relating to the single search episode, including Ingwersen's (1992,1996) Cognitive Model of IR Interaction, Belkin et al.'s (1995) Episodic Interaction Model, and Saracevic's (1996,1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In this chapter we examine Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction and extend the model within the framework of cognitive IR (CIR) to depict CIR as a multitasking process. This chapter provides a new direction for CIR research by conceptualizing IR with a multitasking context. The next section of the chapter defines the concept of multitasking in the cognitive sciences and Section 3 discusses the emerging understanding of multitasking information behavior. In Section 4, cognitive IR is depicted within a multitasking framework using Saracevic's (1996, 1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In Section 5, we link information searching and seeking models together, via Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction, but starting with a unitask model of HIB. We begin to model multitasking in cognitive IR in Section 6. In Sections 7 and 8, we increase the complexity of our developing multitasking model of cognitive IR by adding coordinating mechanisms, including feedback loops. Finally, in Section 9, we conclude the chapter and indicate future directions for further research.

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22

0.018694704 = product of:
  0.03738941 = sum of:
    0.03738941 = product of:
      0.07477882 = sum of:
        0.07477882 = weight(_text_:searching in 6918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07477882 = score(doc=6918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 6918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01652394 = product of:
  0.03304788 = sum of:
    0.03304788 = product of:
      0.06609576 = sum of:
        0.06609576 = weight(_text_:searching in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06609576 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.3160384 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors report the findings of a study that analyzes and compares the query logs of PsycINFO for psychology and the two history databases of ABC-Clio: Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life to establish the sociological nature of information need, searching, and seeking in history versus psychology. Two problems are addressed: (a) What level of query log analysis - by individual query terms, by co-occurrence of word pairs, or by multiword terms (MWTs) - best serves as data for categorizing the queries to these two subject-bound databases; and (b) how can the differences in the nature of the queries to history versus psychology databases aid in our understanding of user search behavior and the information needs of their respective users. The authors conclude that MWTs provide the most effective snapshot of user searching behavior for query categorization. The MWTs to ABC-Clio indicate specific instances of historical events, people, and regions, whereas the MWTs to PsycINFO indicate concepts roughly equivalent to descriptors used by PsycINFO's own classification scheme. The average length of queries is 3.16 terms for PsycINFO and 3.42 for ABC-Clio, which breaks from findings for other reference and scholarly search engine studies, bringing query length closer in line to findings for general Web search engines like Excite.

0.013219153 = product of:
  0.026438305 = sum of:
    0.026438305 = product of:
      0.05287661 = sum of:
        0.05287661 = weight(_text_:searching in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05287661 = score(doc=2389,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.2528307 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the second part of a two-part special topic JASIST issue an information seeking. The first part presented papers an the topics of health information seeking and everyday life information seeking or ELIS (i.e., information seeking outside of work or school). This second issue presents papers an the topics of information retrieval and information seeking in industry environments. Information retrieval involves a specific kind of information seeking, as the user is in direct contact with an information interface and with potential sources of information from the system's database. The user conducts the search using various strategies, tactics, etc., but there is also the possibility that information processes will occur resulting in a change in the way the user thinks about the topic of the search. If this occurs, the user is, in effect, using the found data, turning it into an informational element of some kind. Such processes can be facilitated in the design of the information retrieval system. Information seeking in industry environments takes up more and more of our working day. Even companies producing industrial products are in fact mainly producing informational elements of some kind, often for the purpose of making decisions or as starting positions for further information seeking. While there may be company mechanisms in place to aid such information seeking, and to make it more efficient, if better information seeking structures were in place, not only would workers waste less time in informational pursuits, but they would also find things, discover new processes, etc., that would benefit the corporation's bottom line. In Figure l, we plot the six papers in this issue an an information behavior continuum, following a taxonomy of information behavior terms from Spink and Cole (2001). Information Behavior is a broad term covering all aspects of information seeking, including passive or undetermined information behavior. Information-Seeking Behavior is usually thought of as active or conscious information behavior. Information-Searching Behavior describes the interactive elements between a user and an information system. Information-Use Behavior is about the user's acquisition and incorporation of data in some kind of information process. This leads to the production of information, but also back to the broad range of Information Behavior in the first part of the continuum. Though we plot all papers in this issue along this continuum, they take into account more than their general framework. The three information retrieval reports veer from the traditional information-searching approach of usersystem interaction, while the three industry environment articles veer from the traditional information-seeking approach of specific context information-seeking studies.

0.01168419 = product of:
  0.02336838 = sum of:
    0.02336838 = product of:
      0.04673676 = sum of:
        0.04673676 = weight(_text_:searching in 3469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04673676 = score(doc=3469,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 3469, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3469)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Domain novice users in the beginning stages of researching a topic find themselves searching for information via information retrieval (IR) systems before they have identified their information need. Pre-Internet access technologies adapted by current IR systems poorly serve these domain novice users, whose behavior might be characterized as rudderless and without a compass. In this article we describe a conceptual design for an information retrieval system that incorporates standard information need identification classification and subject cataloging schemes, called the INIIReye System, and a study that tests the efficacy of the innovative part of the INIIReye System, called the Associative Index. The Associative Index helps the user put together his or her associative thoughts-Vannevar Bush's idea of associative indexing for his Memex machine that he never actually described. For the first time, data from the study reported here quantitatively supports the theoretical notion that the information seeker's information need is identified through transformation of his/her knowledge structure (i.e., the seeker's cognitive map or perspective an the task far which information is being sought).

0.010506795 = product of:
  0.02101359 = sum of:
    0.02101359 = product of:
      0.04202718 = sum of:
        0.04202718 = weight(_text_:22 in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04202718 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3675, 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=3675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 14:51:49

0.008755663 = product of:
  0.017511327 = sum of:
    0.017511327 = product of:
      0.035022654 = sum of:
        0.035022654 = weight(_text_:22 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035022654 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 667, 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=667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:41:17