Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.044508632 = product of:
  0.1335259 = sum of:
    0.1335259 = weight(_text_:search in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1335259 = score(doc=7968,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.7641736 = fieldWeight in 7968, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7968)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One in a series of studies on the selection of search terms during an online search involving users and intermediaries in real online interactive situations. Considers: during what stage of the search process were search terms from different sources selected?; how were the search terms selected at different stages of the search process connected with retrieval of relevant answers as judges by users?; and in what sequences were the search terms selected, in respect to their sources. Sequences of selected search terms were analyzed to describe the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that search term selection follows regular patterns in the dynamics of the search process. Discusses implications of findings

0.04142321 = product of:
  0.12426962 = sum of:
    0.12426962 = weight(_text_:search in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12426962 = score(doc=7824,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.71119964 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a large study, conducted at Rutgers University, NJ, which observed, under real life conditions the interactions between users, intermediaries and information retrieval systems before and during online searching. Examines the stages of the search process at which search terms from different sources were selected and how the search terms selected at different stages of the search process contributed to the retrieval of relevant items as judged by users. Notes the sequences in which terms were selected and analyzes the sequences to determine the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that there are regular patterns in search term selection during the online search process. Discusses the implications of these findings

0.04001028 = product of:
  0.12003084 = sum of:
    0.12003084 = weight(_text_:search in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12003084 = score(doc=4032,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.68694097 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents selected results from a large study which observed under real-life conditions the interaction between users, intermediaries and computers before and during online searching. Concentrates on the sources of search terms and the relation between given search terms and retrieval of relevant and nonrelevant items as answers. Users provided the largest proportion of search terms (61%), followed by the thesuaurs (19%), relevance feedback (11%), and intermediary (9%). Only 4% of search terms resulted in retrieval of relevant items only; 60% retrieved relevant and nonrelevant items; 25% retrieved nonrelevant items only; and 11% retrieved nothing.

0.030007713 = product of:
  0.09002314 = sum of:
    0.09002314 = weight(_text_:search in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09002314 = score(doc=206,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.51520574 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

0.027117856 = product of:
  0.08135357 = sum of:
    0.08135357 = weight(_text_:search in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08135357 = score(doc=4523,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a larger study whose objectives are to observe, under real life conditions, the nature and patterns of interaction between users, intermediaries, and computer sysrtems in the context of online information searching and retrieval. Reports various analyses on the relation of search term sources and the retrieval of items judges as to their relevance. While the users generated the largest proportion of search terms (61%) which were responsible for 68% of retrieved items judges relevant, other sources in the interaction process played an important role

0.023243874 = product of:
  0.06973162 = sum of:
    0.06973162 = weight(_text_:search in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06973162 = score(doc=4150,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A recent study begun at Case Western Reserve University and continued at Rutgers University compared the transcripts of 200 DIALOG searches conducted by 36 experienced searchers on real questions submitted by academic and industrial researchers. Relevance judgements by the researchers were used to give recall and precision scores to each search result. Findings included: a low degree of overlap between searches on the same question in selection of search terms or items retrieved; the more often an item was retrieved by different searchers, the more likely it was to be judged relevant; recall and precision were not necessarly inversly related; there was a significant positive impact on recall/precision from using more cycles (a sequence from selecting terms to displaying results); serious uncorrectd errors were a major problem in poor searches and proper selection of terms a key to successful searches.

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 4894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=4894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 4894, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4894)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports preliminary results from a study, conducted at Rutgers Univ., School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, to conduct observations and experiments under real-life conditions on the nature, effects and patterns in the discourse between users and intermediary searchers and in the related computer commands in the context of online searching and responses. The study involved videotaping interactions between users and intermediaries and recording the search logs for 40 questions. Users judged the relevance of output and completed a number of other measures. Data is analysed both quantitatively, using standard and innovative statistical techniques, and qualitatively, through a grounded theory approach using microanalytic and observational methods

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 4080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=4080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 4080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4080)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information seeking and provision does not occur in a vacuum, but is shaped and affected by the way that individuals convey regard for themselves and for each other. Reports 2 studies that explore the intersection between professional and personal or relational dimensions of intermediary practice during the research phase of a set of online computer search interactions that aim to address user information queries. The 1st study examines and compares, through an interpretative microanalytic approach, explicit and implicit situation defining assumptions contained in the initial talk, or opening moves, of 4 intermediaries in interaction with 2 users each. The 2nd study seeks to verify, quantitatively, interpretative claims developed in the 1st study through an analysis of intermediaries' use of pronouns in the course of their interactions with users. The specific patterns of results gained through this quantitiative study were consistent with those achieved interpretatively in the 1st study. The results of these studies are discussed within a proposed theoretic framework developed from the perspective of a constitutive theory of communication

0.011352143 = product of:
  0.03405643 = sum of:
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.22-25