Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015969018 = product of:
  0.06387607 = sum of:
    0.06387607 = weight(_text_:engines in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06387607 = score(doc=197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.012775214 = product of:
  0.051100858 = sum of:
    0.051100858 = weight(_text_:engines in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051100858 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Humans have used electronic information retrieval (IR) systems for more than 50 years as they evolved from experimental systems to full-scale Web search engines and digital libraries. The fields of library and information science (LIS), cognitive science, human factors and computer science have historically been the leading disciplines in conducting research that seeks to model human interaction with IR systems for all kinds of information related behaviors. As technology problems have been mastered, the theoretical and applied framework for studying human interaction with IR systems has evolved from systems-centered to more user-centered, or cognitive-centered approaches. However, cognitive information retrieval (CIR) research that focuses on user interaction with IR systems is still largely under-funded and is often not included at computing and systems design oriented conferences. But CIR-focused research continues, and there are signs that some IR systems designers in academia and the Web search business are realizing that user behavior research can provide valuable insights into systems design and evaluation. The goal of our book is to provide an overview of new CIR research directions. This book does not provide a history of the research field of CIR. Instead, the book confronts new ways of looking at the human information condition with regard to our increasing need to interact with IR systems. The need has grown due to a number of factors, including the increased importance of information to more people in this information age. Also, IR was once considered document-oriented, but has now evolved to include multimedia, text, and other information objects. As a result, IR systems and their complexity have proliferated as users and user purposes for using them have also proliferated. Human interaction with IR systems can often be frustrating as people often lack an understanding of IR system functionality.

0.012775214 = product of:
  0.051100858 = sum of:
    0.051100858 = weight(_text_:engines in 625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051100858 = score(doc=625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22757743 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04479146 = queryNorm
        0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=625)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0045514684 = product of:
  0.018205874 = sum of:
    0.018205874 = product of:
      0.036411747 = sum of:
        0.036411747 = weight(_text_:22 in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036411747 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.1999 14:51:49

0.0037928906 = product of:
  0.015171562 = sum of:
    0.015171562 = product of:
      0.030343125 = sum of:
        0.030343125 = weight(_text_:22 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030343125 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:41:17

0.0030343123 = product of:
  0.012137249 = sum of:
    0.012137249 = product of:
      0.024274498 = sum of:
        0.024274498 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024274498 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15685207 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04479146 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22