Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015173253 = product of:
  0.045519758 = sum of:
    0.032296598 = product of:
      0.064593196 = sum of:
        0.064593196 = weight(_text_:theory in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064593196 = score(doc=1073,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.39788827 = fieldWeight in 1073, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1073)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013223159 = product of:
      0.026446318 = sum of:
        0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026446318 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.013052515 = product of:
  0.07831509 = sum of:
    0.07831509 = product of:
      0.15663017 = sum of:
        0.15663017 = weight(_text_:theory in 4710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15663017 = score(doc=4710,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.9648278 = fieldWeight in 4710, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes a study whose aim was to analyse theory growth in information science by using a case from information seeking studies. Scientific growth is identified with the growth of theories. Differentiates 3 contexts of theoretical work: unit theories, theoretical research programmes and metatheories. States that for analysis if theory growth, tools based on the current theory of science are needed. Introduces tools for the analysis of theory growth and theory reconstruction and applies them to analysis of a theory on information seeking

0.010217575 = product of:
  0.06130545 = sum of:
    0.06130545 = sum of:
      0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034859132 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026446318 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.0064593195 = product of:
  0.038755916 = sum of:
    0.038755916 = product of:
      0.07751183 = sum of:
        0.07751183 = weight(_text_:theory in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07751183 = score(doc=4493,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.47746593 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The aim of this article is threefold: (1) to give a summary of empirical results reported earlier on relations between students' problem stages in the course of writing their research proposals for a master's thesis and the information sought, choice of search terms and tactics and relevance assessments of the information found for that task; (2) to show how the findings of the study refine Kuhlthau's model of the information search process in the field of information retrieval (IR); and (3) to construe a tentative theory of a task-based IR process based on the supported hypotheses. The results of the empirical studies show that there is a close connection between the students' problem stages (mental model) in the task performance and the information sought, the search tactics used and the assessment of the relevance and utility of the information found. The corroborated hypotheses expand the ideas in Kuhlthau's model in the domain of IR. A theory of task-based information searching based on the empirical findings of the study is presented.

0.006226822 = product of:
  0.03736093 = sum of:
    0.03736093 = product of:
      0.07472186 = sum of:
        0.07472186 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07472186 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.129-144

0.0034859132 = product of:
  0.020915478 = sum of:
    0.020915478 = product of:
      0.041830957 = sum of:
        0.041830957 = weight(_text_:methods in 4435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041830957 = score(doc=4435,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 4435, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4435)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study explored how the expression of search facets and relevance feedback (RF) by users was related to search success in interactive and automatic query expansion in the course of the search process. Search success was measured both in the number of relevant documents retrieved, whether identified by users or not. Research design consisted of 26 users searching for four TREC topics in Okapi IR system, half of the searchers using interactive and half automatic query expansion based on RF. The search logs were recorded, and the users filled in questionnaires for each topic concerning various features of searching. The results showed that the exhaustivity of the query was the most significant predictor of search success. Interactive expansion led to better search success than automatic expansion if all retrieved relevant items were counted, but there was no difference between the methods if only those items recognised relevant by users were observed. The analysis showed that the difference was facilitated by the liberal relevance criterion used in TREC not favouring highly relevant documents in evaluation.

0.0031167285 = product of:
  0.01870037 = sum of:
    0.01870037 = product of:
      0.03740074 = sum of:
        0.03740074 = weight(_text_:22 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03740074 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article focuses an analysing students' information needs in terms of conceptual understanding of the topic they propose to study and its consequences for the search process and outcome. The research subjects were 22 undergraduates of psychology attending a seminar for preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. They were asked to make searches in the PsycINFO database for their task in the beginning and end of the seminar. A pre- and postsearch 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 during the preparation of research proposals different features of the students' conceptual structure were connected to the search success. Students' ability to cover their conceptual construct by query terms was the major feature affecting search success during the whole process. In the beginning also the number of concepts and the proportion of subconcepts in the construct contributed indirectly via search tactics to retrieving partly useful references. Students' ability to extract new query terms from retrieved items improved search results.

Date

19. 6.2003 17:22:33

0.0031077415 = product of:
  0.018646449 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Currently, there exists little evidence concerning how various characteristics of research cultures are associated with patterns of use of electronic library resources. The present study addresses this gap by exploring how research-group membership, across-fields scattering of literature, and degree of establishment of research area are related to patterns of digital library use. The analytic dimensions are derived from Richard Whitley's ([1984]) theory of the social and intellectual organization of academic fields. The article represents a first attempt to operationalize Whitley's concepts in a large-scale study of e-resources use. The data used in the study were gathered in 2004 by the Finnish Electronic Library (FinElib) through a nationwide Web-based user questionnaire (N = 900). Membership in a research group significantly increased searching in journal databases, the importance of colleagues as sources of information about electronic articles and journals, and the use of alert services. A significant interaction effect was found between degree of across-fields scattering of relevant resources and degree of establishment of research fields. A high degree of across-fields scattering of relevant literature increased the number of journal databases used mainly in less established research areas whereas it influenced the use of journal databases less in established fields. This research contributes to our picture concerning the complex set of interacting factors influencing patterns of use of e-resources.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 3328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=3328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 3328, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This small-scale empirical study focuses an students' anticipated and assessed contribution of references retrieved during the preparation of research proposals. It explores how the expected contribution of types of information before searches differs from the assessed contribution of relevant references found by the types of information. Twenty-two psychology undergraduates searched the PsychINFO database for references at the initial and end stages of a seminar for preparing proposals. Data about their subject knowledge, search goals, and utility assessments were collected using several methods. They were asked to predict and assess the utility of information types provided by relevant references for the proposals. At the beginning of the process, they found fewer general types of information and more specific types of information than they expected. However, the students tended to accept references according to their expectations. By the end of the process, the expected importance of general information types declined and the importance of specific information types increased. At the end of the task, students became more proficient at recognizing the utility and topicality of references. They also became more critical in accepting found information to match their expectations.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

0.0022038599 = product of:
  0.013223159 = sum of:
    0.013223159 = product of:
      0.026446318 = sum of:
        0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026446318 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.001779092 = product of:
  0.010674552 = sum of:
    0.010674552 = product of:
      0.021349104 = sum of:
        0.021349104 = weight(_text_:29 in 1797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021349104 = score(doc=1797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 1797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

8. 4.2015 16:20:29