Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.098739415 = product of:
  0.14810912 = sum of:
    0.12426962 = weight(_text_:search in 5302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12426962 = score(doc=5302,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.71119964 = fieldWeight in 5302, 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=5302)
    0.0238395 = product of:
      0.047679 = sum of:
        0.047679 = weight(_text_:22 in 5302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047679 = score(doc=5302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An evidence-based practice approach to search interface design is proposed, with the goal of designing interfaces that adequately support search strategy formulation and reformulation. Relevant findings from studies of information professionals' searching behaviors, end users' searching of bibliographic databases, and search behaviors on the Web are highlighted. Three brief examples are presented to illustrate the ways in which findings from such studies can be used to make decisions about the design of search interfaces. If academic research can be effectively connected with design practice, we can discover which design practices truly are best practices and incorporate them into future search interfaces.

Date

22. 7.2006 18:30:09

Footnote

Beitrag in einer Special Section "Perspectives on Search User Interfaces: Best Practices and Future Visions"

0.07052815 = product of:
  0.105792224 = sum of:
    0.08876401 = weight(_text_:search in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08876401 = score(doc=189,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5079997 = fieldWeight in 189, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=189)
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 189, 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=189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Almost 30 years ago, Taylor (1968) postulated that each information need moves along a continuum from the visceral need through the compromised need. The current study examines the final transition in this continuum: from formalized need (expressed in an explicit verbal statement) to compromised need (represented in the language of the retrieval system). This transition is primarily concerned with vocabulary: the searcher attempts to translate an explicit statement of need into a search term (or terms) that can be interpreted by the retrieval system. A few studies have empirically examined the match between the end-user searcher's formalized need and the compromised need (i.e., search terms). Markey (1984) compared the searcher's expressed topic (the formalized need, expressed in just a few words) and the search terms (the compromised need), and then went on to compare the search terms with the library catalog terms available for subject searching. She found that the search term matched or was a partial form of the expressed topic in 71% of the searches, and that over 75% of these searches matched a catalog term. Allen (1991) examined the relationship between logical reasoning ability and selection of search terms. He asked college students to read a magazine article (which could be seen as a very rich statement of the formalized need) and then to perform a search for articles on the same topic (expressing the compromised need).

Date

22. 3.2002 8:54:11

0.044283267 = product of:
  0.1328498 = sum of:
    0.1328498 = weight(_text_:search in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1328498 = score(doc=2422,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.76030433 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The transaction logs of 53 medical students' searches of a factual database, INQUIRER, of microbiology facts and concepts were analysed in detail to determine: the overall frequency of search moves; the interaction between the problem statement and the students' search strategies; the search moves selected by individual students; and the tactics (combinations of moves) used by the students. Over 200 searches were conducted in response to clinical scenarios in microbiology and the searches were made up of 853 search moves. Results indicate that students used only a few distinct moves and that their selection of moves varied by individual and by search stimulus. Patterns also emerged in students' combinations of search moves into search tactics

0.037957087 = product of:
  0.113871254 = sum of:
    0.113871254 = weight(_text_:search in 2221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113871254 = score(doc=2221,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6516894 = fieldWeight in 2221, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2221)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A search tactic is a set of search moves that are temporally and semantically related. The current study examined the tactics of medical students searching a factual database in microbiology. The students answered problems and searched the database an three occasions over a 9-month period. Their search moves were analyzed in terms of the changes in search terms used from one cycle to the next, using two different analysis methods. Common patterns were found in the students' search tactics; the most common approach was the specification of a concept, followed by the addition of one or more concepts, gradually narrowing the retrieved set before it was displayed. It was also found that the search tactics changed over time as the students' domain knowledge changed. These results have important implications for designers in developing systems that will support users' preferred ways of formulating searches. In addition, the research methods used (the coding scheme and the two data analysis methods-zero-order state transition matrices and maximal repeating patterns [MRP] analysis) are discussed in terms of their validity in future studies of search tactics.

0.035364427 = product of:
  0.10609328 = sum of:
    0.10609328 = weight(_text_:search in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10609328 = score(doc=2423,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.60717577 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users

0.0328718 = product of:
  0.0986154 = sum of:
    0.0986154 = weight(_text_:search in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0986154 = score(doc=5085,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5643796 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate an existing set of search tasks in terms of their effectiveness as part of a "shared infrastructure" for conducting interactive IR research. Twenty search tasks that varied in their cognitive complexity and domain were assigned to 47 study participants; the 3,101 moves used to complete those tasks were then analyzed in terms of frequency of each type of move and the sequential patterns they formed. The cognitive complexity of the tasks influenced the number of moves used to complete the tasks, with the most complex (i.e., Create) tasks requiring more moves than tasks at other levels of complexity. Across the four domains, the Commerce tasks elicited more search moves per search. When sequences of moves were analyzed, seven patterns were identified; some of these patterns were associated with particular task characteristics. The findings suggest that search tasks can be designed to elicit particular types of search behaviors and, thus, allow researchers to focus attention on particular aspects of IR interactions.

0.027117856 = product of:
  0.08135357 = sum of:
    0.08135357 = weight(_text_:search in 2050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08135357 = score(doc=2050,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 2050, 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=2050)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The traditional measures of online searching proficiency (recall and precision) are less appropriate when applied to the searching of full text databases. The pilot study investigated and evaluated 5 measures of overall success in searching a full text data bank. Data was drawn from INQUIRER searches conducted by medical students at North Carolina Univ. at Chapel Hill. INQUIRER ia an online database of facts and concepts in microbiology. The 5 measures were: success/failure; precision; search term overlap; number of search cycles; and time per search. Concludes that the last 4 measures look promising for the evaluation of fact data bases such as ENQUIRER

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 3249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=3249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 3249, 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=3249)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Traditionally, catalogue records have contained a complete description of the item to ensure retrieval by a wide variety of approaches. An alternative approach, user centered design, requires a study of user behaviour and cognition related to interaction with the catalogue to determine inform design decisions. To support known item searching, it is necessary to users' conceptions of the item being sought, what the users know about them, and which pieces of known information are viewed by the users as most appropriate for inclusion in a search. Reports results of a pilot study, at the Davis Library, North Caroline University at Chapel Hill, in which 103 catalogue users described 386 searches and any written information known by the searchers was photocopied. Searchers generally knew the title, publication date, and page numbers (particular for periodical articles). Results indicated that this approach to catalogue design was feasible and valid, and provided a preliminary picture of nkown item searching in 1 library's catalogue

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=3250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 3250, 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=3250)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Traditionally, catalogue records have contained a complete description of the item to ensure retrieval by a wide variety of approaches. An alternative approach, user centered design, requires a study of user behaviour and cognition related to interaction with the catalogue to determine inform design decisions. To support known item searching, it is necessary to users' conceptions of the item being sought, what the users know about them, and which pieces of known information are viewed by the users as most appropriate for inclusion in a search. Reports results of a pilot study, at the Davis Library, North Caroline University at Chapel Hill, in which 103 catalogue users described 386 searches and any written information known by the searchers was photocopied. Searchers generally knew the title, publication date, and page numbers (particular for periodical articles). Results indicated that this approach to catalogue design was feasible and valid, and provided a preliminary picture of nkown item searching in 1 library's catalogue

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 1257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=1257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1257, 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=1257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2003 9:37:22