Search (124 results, page 1 of 7)

0.057618115 = product of:
  0.13444227 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1073)
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1073)
    0.06436171 = sum of:
      0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03635913 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1073, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1073)
      0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028002575 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1073, 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=1073)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The study analyses how students' growing understanding of the topic and search experience were related to their choice of search tactics and terms while preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. In addition to that, the findings of the study are used to test Vakkari's (2001) theory of task-based IR. The research subjects were 22 students of psychology attending a seminar for preparing the proposal. They made a search for their task in PsychINFO database at the beginning and end of the seminar. Data were collected in several ways. A pre- and post-search interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded as were the transaction logs. The results show that search experience was slightly related to the change of facets. Although the students' vocabulary of the topic grew generating an increased use of specific terms between the sessions, their use of search tactics and operators remained fairly constant. There was no correlation between the terms and tactics used and the total number of useful references found. By comparing these results with the findings of relevant earlier studies the conclusion was drawn that domain knowledge has an impact on searching assuming that users have a sufficient command of the system used. This implies that the tested theory of task-based IR is valid on condition that the searchers are experienced. It is suggested that the theory should be enriched by including search experience in its scope.

Source

Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.3, S.445-463

0.03173722 = product of:
  0.11108026 = sum of:
    0.07490338 = weight(_text_:case in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07490338 = score(doc=1270,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
    0.03617688 = product of:
      0.07235376 = sum of:
        0.07235376 = weight(_text_:studies in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07235376 = score(doc=1270,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.43865734 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 54(2003) no.7, S.695-697 (R. Savolainen): "Donald O. Case has written an ambitious book to create an overall picture of the major approaches to information needs and seeking (INS) studies. The aim to write an extensive review is reflected in the list of references containing about 700 items. The high ambitions are explained an p. 14, where Case states that he is aiming at a multidisciplinary understanding of the concept of information seeking. In the Preface, the author characterizes his book as an introduction to the topic for students at the graduate level, as well as as a review and handbook for scholars engagged in information behavior research. In my view, Looking for Information is particularly welcome as an academic textbook because the field of INS studies suffers from the lack of monographs. Along with the continuous growth of the number of journal articles and conference papers, there is a genuine need for a book that picks up the numerous pieces and puts them together. The use of the study as a textbook is facilitated by clearly delineated sections an major themes and the wealth of concrete examples of information seeking in everyday contexts. The book is lucidly written and it is accessible to novice readers, too. At first glance, the idea of providing a comprehensive review of INS studies may seem a mission impossible because the current number of articles, papers, and other contributions in this field is nearing the 10,000 range (p. 224). Donald Case is not alone in the task of coming to grips with an increasing number of studies; similar problems have been faced by those writing INS-related chapters for the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST). Case has solved the problem of "too many publications to be reviewed" by concentrating an the INS literature published during the last two decades. Secondly, studies an library use and information retrieval are discussed only to a limited extent. In addition, Case is highly selective as to studies focusing an the use of specific sources and channels such as WWW. These delineations are reasonable, even though they beg some questions. First, how should one draw the line between studies an information seeking and information retrieval? Case does not discuss this question in greater detail, although in recent years, the overlapping areas of information seeking and retrieval studies have been broadened, along with the growing importance of WWW in information seeking/retrieval. Secondly, how can one define the concept of information searching (or, more specifically, Internet or Web searching) in relation to information seeking and information retrieval? In the field of Web searching studies, there is an increasing number of contributions that are of direct relevance to information-seeking studies. Clearly, the advent of the Internet, particularly, the Web, has blurred the previous lines between INS and IR literature, making them less clear cut. The book consists of five main sections, and comprises 13 chapters. There is an Appendix serving the needs of an INS textbook (questions for discussion and application). The structure of the book is meticulously planned and, as a whole, it offers a sufficiently balanced contribution to theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues of INS. The title, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research an Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior aptly describes the main substance of the book. . . . It is easy to agree with Case about the significance of the problem of specialization and fragmentation. This problem seems to be concomitant with the broadening field of INS research. In itself, Case's book can be interpreted as a struggle against this fragmentation. His book suggests that this struggle is not hopeless and that it is still possible to draw an overall picture of the evolving research field. The major pieces of the puzzle were found and the book will provide a useful overview of INS studies for many years."

0.030415442 = product of:
  0.106454045 = sum of:
    0.08827448 = weight(_text_:case in 3600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08827448 = score(doc=3600,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.48573974 = fieldWeight in 3600, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3600)
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 3600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=3600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3600, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article reports on a longitudinal analysis of query logs of a web-based case library system during an 8-year period (from 2005 to 2012). The analysis studies 3 different information-seeking approaches: keyword searching, browsing, and case-based reasoning (CBR) searching provided by the system by examining the query logs that stretch over 8 years. The longitudinal dimension of this study offers unique possibilities to see how users used the 3 different approaches over time. Various user information-seeking patterns and trends are identified through the query usage pattern analysis and session analysis. The study identified different user groups and found that a majority of the users tend to stick to their favorite information-seeking approach to meet their immediate information needs and do not seem to care whether alternative search options will offer greater benefits. The study also found that return users used CBR searching much more frequently than 1-time users and tend to use more query terms to look for information than 1-time users.

Theme

Case Based Reasoning

0.027598757 = product of:
  0.096595645 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=1320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
    0.043630954 = product of:
      0.08726191 = sum of:
        0.08726191 = weight(_text_:studies in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08726191 = score(doc=1320,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.52904063 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

User studies provide libraries with invaluable insight into their users' information needs and behaviors, allowing them to develop services that correspond to these needs. This insight has become even more important for libraries since the advent of the Internet. The Internet has brought about a development of information technologies and electronic information sources that have had a great impact on both the ways users search for information and the ways libraries manage information. Although humanists represent an important group of users for academic libraries, research studies into their information-seeking behavior since the advent of the Internet have been quite scarce (Ellis & Oldman, 2005) in the past decade. This study presents updated research on a group of humanists, Jewish studies scholars living in Israel, as information users in the digital age based on two categories: (a) the use of formal and informal information channels, and (b) the use of information technologies and their impact on humanistic research.

0.022998964 = product of:
  0.08049637 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=3803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
    0.03635913 = product of:
      0.07271826 = sum of:
        0.07271826 = weight(_text_:studies in 3803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07271826 = score(doc=3803,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 3803, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The 4th edition of this popular and well-cited text is now co-authored, and includes significant changes from earlier texts. Presenting a comprehensive review of over a century of research on information behavior (IB), this book is intended for students in information studies and disciplines interested in research on information activities. The initial two chapters introduce IB as a multi-disciplinary topic, the 3rd provides a brief history of research on information seeking. Chapter four discusses what is meant by the terms "information" and "knowledge. "Chapter five discusses "information needs," and how they are addressed. The 6th chapter identifies many related concepts. Twelve models of information behavior (expanded from earlier editions) are illustrated in chapter seven. Chapter eight reviews various paradigms and theories informing IB research. Chapter nine examines research methods invoked in IB studies and a discussion of qualitative and mixed approaches. The 10th chapter gives examples of IB studies by context. The final chapter looks at strengths and weaknesses, recent trends, and future development.

Editor

Case, D.O. u. Lisa M. Given

Series

Studies in information

0.020023016 = product of:
  0.070080556 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.2, S.583-592

0.020023016 = product of:
  0.070080556 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 2458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=2458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2458)
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 2458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=2458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2458)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper reports on the findings from a longitudinal case study exploring Kuhlthau's information search process (ISP)-model in a group based academic setting. The research focus is on group members' activities and cognitive and emotional experiences during the task process of writing an assignment. It is investigated if group members' information behavior differ from the individual information seeker in the ISP-model and to what extent this behavior is influenced by contextual (work task) and social (group work) factors. Three groups of LIS students were followed during a 14 weeks period in 2004/2005 (10 participants). Quantitative and qualitative methods were employed, such as demographic surveys, process surveys, diaries and interviews. Similarities in behavior were found between group members and the individual in Kuhlthau's ISP-model with regard to the general stages of information seeking, the cognitive pattern associated with focus formulation and the tendency towards an increase in writing activities while searching activities decreased. Differences in behavior were also found, which were associated with contextual and social factors beyond the mere search process. It is concluded that the ISP-model does not fully comply with group members' problem solving process and the involved information seeking behavior. Further, complex academic problem solving seems to be even more complex when it is performed in a group based setting. The study contributes with a new conceptual understanding of students' behavior in small groups.

Source

Information processing and management. 45(2009) no.1, S.142-158

0.018422639 = product of:
  0.06447923 = sum of:
    0.049935583 = weight(_text_:case in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049935583 = score(doc=4497,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2747759 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
    0.014543652 = product of:
      0.029087303 = sum of:
        0.029087303 = weight(_text_:studies in 4497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029087303 = score(doc=4497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 4497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Content

Key Features - Importantly, the book enables readers to develop strategies which will continue to be useful despite the rapidly-evolving state of the Internet and Internet technologies - it is not about technological `tricks'. - Enables readers to be aware of and compensate for bias and errors which are ubiquitous an the Internet. - Provides contemporary information an the deficiencies in web skills of novice users as well as practical techniques for teaching such users. The Authors Dr Alison Stacey works at the Learning Resource Centre, Cambridge Regional College. Dr Adrian Stacey, formerly based at Cambridge University, is a software programmer. Readership The book is aimed at a wide range of librarians and other information professionals who need to retrieve information from the Internet efficiently, to evaluate their confidence in the information they retrieve and/or to train others to use the Internet. It is primarily aimed at intermediate to advanced users of the Internet. Contents Fundamentals of information retrieval from the Internet - why learn web searching technique; types of information requests; patterns for information retrieval; leveraging the technology: Search term choice: pinpointing information an the web - why choose queries carefully; making search terms work together; how to pick search terms; finding the 'unfindable': Blas an the Internet - importance of bias; sources of bias; usergenerated bias: selecting information with which you already agree; assessing and compensating for bias; case studies: Query reformulation and longer term strategies - how to interact with your search engine; foraging for information; long term information retrieval: using the Internet to find trends; automating searches: how to make your machine do your work: Assessing the quality of results- how to assess and ensure quality: The novice user and teaching internet skills - novice users and their problems with the web; case study: research in a college library; interpreting 'second hand' web information.

0.016018415 = product of:
  0.05606445 = sum of:
    0.020754656 = weight(_text_:management in 971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020754656 = score(doc=971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=971)
    0.03530979 = weight(_text_:case in 971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03530979 = score(doc=971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=971)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Though much information behaviour takes place in collaborative settings, information behaviour processes are commonly perceived and modelled by information scientists as individual processes. The paper presents and discusses the findings from a qualitative preliminary case study exploring Kuhlthau's Information Search Process (ISP) model in a group-based educational setting. The aim of the study was to explore if members of a group behave differently from the individual modelled in the ISP model and further, if members of a group demonstrate different behaviours or they will assimilate and turn the group into 'an individual', just in another sense. During a project assignment, which lasted seven weeks, two groups of information science students filled out a questionnaire and kept diaries of their activities and information-related behaviour. Further, the students were interviewed three times each during the study. It was found that contextual and social factors seem to affect group members' physical activities and their cognitive and emotional experiences during a project assignment with relevance to information behaviour. Though group members to some extent demonstrated similar cognitive experiences as the individual in the ISP model, these experiences did not only result from information seeking activities but also from work task activities and intragroup interactions. Regarding group members' emotional experiences, no emotional 'turning point' resulting in certainty and relief by the end of the information seeking process was identified. Further, some of the group members still felt uncertain, frustrated and disappointed at the end of the project assignment, which partly was associated with a mis-match in motivations, ambitions and project focus among group members. Regarding the intragroup behaviour, group members did not demonstrate similar behaviours, meaning that 'groups' cannot be perceived or modelled as 'an individual', just in another sense. Groups consist of individuals engaged in and affected by a collaborative problem solving process involving information (seeking) behaviour. A natural extension of the ISP model in relation to group processes is suggested, addressing also the impact of social and contextual factors on the individual's information behaviour.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.276-298

0.015127847 = product of:
  0.05294746 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=923,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 923, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=923)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=923,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 923, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=923)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Engineers face a wide range of gaps when trying to identify, acquire, and utilize information from the Web. To be able to avoid creating such gaps, it is essential to understand them in detail. This paper reports the results of a study of the real life gaps in information usage processes of 17 engineers. Using the critical incident interviewing technique, 65 examples of information usage processes were uncovered. An inductive analysis of these data, using the constant comparison method, yields five classes of identification gaps, of acquisition gaps, and of utilization gaps. Within these fifteen gap classes, 79 types of information usage gaps are identified. The results of this study confirm and extend existing studies on information usage gaps. Future research should examine whether such gaps need to be bridged and, if so, how they could be bridged.

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.5, S.1368-1382

0.015127847 = product of:
  0.05294746 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 991, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=991)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Multitasking is the human ability to handle the demands of multiple tasks. Multitasking behavior involves the ordering of multiple tasks and switching between tasks. People often multitask when using information retrieval (IR) technologies as they seek information on more than one information problem over single or multiple search episodes. However, limited studies have examined how people order their information problems, especially during their Web search engine interaction. The aim of our exploratory study was to investigate assigned information problem ordering by forty (40) study participants engaged in Web search. Findings suggest that assigned information problem ordering was influenced by the following factors, including personal interest, problem knowledge, perceived level of information available on the Web, ease of finding information, level of importance and seeking information on information problems in order from general to specific. Personal interest and problem knowledge were the major factors during assigned information problem ordering. Implications of the findings and further research are discussed. The relationship between information problem ordering and gratification theory is an important area for further exploration.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.5, S.1366-1378

0.015127847 = product of:
  0.05294746 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 2441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=2441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2441)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 2441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=2441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 2441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

It is widely believed that many queries submitted to search engines are inherently ambiguous (e.g., java and apple). However, few studies have tried to classify queries based on ambiguity and to answer "what the proportion of ambiguous queries is". This paper deals with these issues. First, we clarify the definition of ambiguous queries by constructing the taxonomy of queries from being ambiguous to specific. Second, we ask human annotators to manually classify queries. From manually labeled results, we observe that query ambiguity is to some extent predictable. Third, we propose a supervised learning approach to automatically identify ambiguous queries. Experimental results show that we can correctly identify 87% of labeled queries with the approach. Finally, by using our approach, we estimate that about 16% of queries in a real search log are ambiguous.

Source

Information processing and management. 45(2009) no.2, S.216-229

0.014262671 = product of:
  0.049919344 = sum of:
    0.029351516 = weight(_text_:management in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029351516 = score(doc=278,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.21066327 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
    0.020567829 = product of:
      0.041135658 = sum of:
        0.041135658 = weight(_text_:studies in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041135658 = score(doc=278,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.24939215 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

For senior executives, the ability to work with large quantities of information - sorting the wheat from the chaff- has long been recognised as a key determinant of achievement. What an executive believes to be important information can have a significant influence on what they think and how they think about it. Senior executives, because of their critical leadership role, are challenged in their daily lives to develop effective ways of acquiring, using and sharing important information. Some executives are undoubtedly better than others in how they handle such information and there is a high level of interest in identifying those information behavior characteristics that lead to executive excellence (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Because of their position within organizations, CEOs - those senior executives who have overall responsibility for the management of the organization or business unit - are particularly concerned with enhancing their information behavior. CEOs have the task of managing the organization so that it achieves its strategic goals and objectives. And a critical part of this task is becoming highly effective in managing a wide range of information and in developing skills of influence and decision making. It is therefore important for us to understand how senior executives handle information on a day-to-day basis. What information do they consider important? And why? Several studies have sought to address these questions with varying degrees of success. Some have set out to better understand what type of information senior executives need (McLeod & Jones, 1987) while other studies have attempted to provide a comprehensive theoretical base for executive work (Mintzberg, 1968; 1973; 1975). Yet other work has tried to devise various tools and methodologies for eliciting the unique information requirements of individual executives (Rockart, 1979).

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.01299692 = product of:
  0.090978436 = sum of:
    0.090978436 = sum of:
      0.06297586 = weight(_text_:studies in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06297586 = score(doc=297,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.3818022 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
      0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028002575 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 297, 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=297)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In information needs, seeking and use (INSU) research, individuals have most commonly been perceived as users (e.g., Kuhlthau, 1991; Dervin & Nilan, 1986; Dervin, 1989; Belkin, 1980). The concept user originates from the user of libraries and other information services and information systems. Over the years the scope of the concept has become wider and it is nowadays often understood in the sense of seekers of information (e.g., Wilson, 1981; Marchionini, 1995) and users of information (e.g., Streatfield, 1983). Nevertheless, the concept has remained ambiguous by being on the one hand universal and on the other hand extremely specific. The purpose of this paper is to map and evaluate views on people whose information behaviour has been in one way or another the core of our research area. The goal is to shed some light on various relationships between the different aspects of doers in INSU studies. The paper is inspired by Dervin's (1997) analysis of context where she identified among other themes the nature of subject by contrasting a `transcendental individual' with a `decentered subject', and Talja's (1997) presentation about constituting `information' and `user' from the discourse analytic viewpoint as opposed to the cognitive viewpoint. Instead of the metatheoretical approach applied by Dervin and Talja, a more concrete approach is valid in the present analysis where no direct arguments for or against the underlying metatheories are itemised. The focus is on doers in INSU studies leaving other, even closely-related concepts (i.e., information, information seeking, knowledge etc.), outside the scope of the paper.

Date

22. 3.2002 9:55:52

0.01261064 = product of:
  0.08827448 = sum of:
    0.08827448 = weight(_text_:case in 3802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08827448 = score(doc=3802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.48573974 = fieldWeight in 3802, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3802)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Editor

Case, D.O.

0.012606538 = product of:
  0.044122882 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Despite a number of studies looking at Web experience and Web searching tactics and behaviours, the specific relationships between experience and cognitive search strategies have not been widely researched. This study investigates how the cognitive search strategies of 80 participants might vary with Web experience as they engaged in two researcher-defined tasks and two participant-defined information seeking tasks. Each of the two researcher-defined tasks and participant-defined tasks included a directed search task and a general-purpose browsing task. While there were almost no significant performance differences between experience levels on any of the four tasks, there were significant differences in the use of cognitive search strategies. Participants with higher levels of Web experience were more likely to use "Parallel player", "Parallel hub-and-spoke", "Known address search domain" and "Known address" strategies, whereas participants with lower levels of Web experience were more likely to use "Virtual tourist", "Link-dependent", "To-the-point", "Sequential player", "Search engine narrowing", and "Broad first" strategies. The patterns of use and differences between researcher-defined and participant-defined tasks and between directed search tasks and general-purpose browsing tasks are also discussed, although the distribution of search strategies by Web experience were not statistically significant for each individual task.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.3, S.1308-1329

0.012606538 = product of:
  0.044122882 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 5048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=5048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5048)
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 5048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=5048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Legal researchers, recruitment professionals, healthcare information professionals, and patent analysts all undertake work tasks where search forms a core part of their duties. In these instances, the search task is often complex and time-consuming and requires specialist expertise to identify relevant documents and insights within large domain-specific repositories and collections. Several studies have been made investigating the search practices of professionals such as these, but few have attempted to directly compare their professional practices and so it remains unclear to what extent insights and approaches from one domain can be applied to another. In this paper we describe the results of a survey of a purposive sample of 108 legal researchers, 64 recruitment professionals and 107 healthcare information professionals. Their responses are compared with results from a previous survey of 81 patent analysts. The survey investigated their search practices and preferences, the types of functionality they value, and their requirements for future information retrieval systems. The results reveal that these professions share many fundamental needs and face similar challenges. In particular a continuing preference to formulate queries as Boolean expressions, the need to manage, organise and re-use search strategies and results and an ambivalence toward the use of relevance ranking. The results stress the importance of recall and coverage for the healthcare and patent professionals, while precision and recency were more important to the legal and recruitment professionals. The results also highlight the need to ensure that search systems give confidence to the professional searcher and so trust, explainability and accountability remains a significant challenge when developing such systems. The findings suggest that translational research between the different areas could benefit professionals across domains.

Source

Information processing and management. 54(2018) no.6, S.1042-1057

0.012103172 = product of:
  0.0847222 = sum of:
    0.0847222 = weight(_text_:europe in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0847222 = score(doc=283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25178367 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

As a result of the Internet, electronic networks occupy a more visible place in everyday life. Until the early nineties, the use of electronic networks was limited to a rather small number of people working in enterprises and universities. Since then, the networks have become more accessible for other citizens. Currently at least 60-70 million people all over the world are estimated to use the Internet (Gaines et al., 1997: 990). In 2000, the number of WWW users alone is expected to reach 160 million (Aldridge & Darwood 1997: 283). The rapid growth of network use has given rise to a lot of research needs. For example, what are the main purposes of network use and to what extent may the Internet replace other channels in information seeking? Thus far, the utilization of networks has been mainly surveyed in the USA but, in recent years issues of use have also attracted increasing attention in Western Europe. This study is a continuation of a research project focusing on the ways in which citizens seek information in the context of everyday life (see Savolainen 1995). An attempt is made to analyze how citizens utilize the electronic networks, primarily for non-work purposes. This paper communicates part of an empirical study; a detailed report is available in Finnish (Savolainen 1998b).

0.011412744 = product of:
  0.039944604 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2680, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2680)
    0.0140012875 = product of:
      0.028002575 = sum of:
        0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028002575 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

25. 1.2016 18:46:22

Source

Information processing and management. 51(2015) no.5, S.557-569

0.011412744 = product of:
  0.039944604 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 5493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5493)
    0.0140012875 = product of:
      0.028002575 = sum of:
        0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028002575 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.3, S.325-343