Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02476748 = product of:
  0.07430244 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Information retrieval systems' ability to retrieve highly relevant documents has become more and more important in the age of extremely large collections, such as the World Wide Web (WWW). The authors' aim was to find out how corpus-based cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) manages in retrieving highly relevant documents. They created a Finnish-Swedish comparable corpus from two loosely related document collections and used it as a source of knowledge for query translation. Finnish test queries were translated into Swedish and run against a Swedish test collection. Graded relevance assessments were used in evaluating the results and three relevance criterion levels-liberal, regular, and stringent-were applied. The runs were also evaluated with generalized recall and precision, which weight the retrieved documents according to their relevance level. The performance of the Comparable Corpus Translation system (COCOT) was compared to that of a dictionarybased query translation program; the two translation methods were also combined. The results indicate that corpus-based CUR performs particularly well with highly relevant documents. In average precision, COCOT even matched the monolingual baseline on the highest relevance level. The performance of the different query translation methods was further analyzed by finding out reasons for poor rankings of highly relevant documents.

0.015938118 = product of:
  0.047814354 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.01238374 = product of:
  0.03715122 = sum of:
    0.024084795 = weight(_text_:wide in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024084795 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
    0.013066427 = weight(_text_:web in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013066427 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Turn analyzes the research of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R) and proposes a new direction of integrating research in these two areas: the fields should turn off their separate and narrow paths and construct a new avenue of research. An essential direction for this avenue is context as given in the subtitle Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Other essential themes in the book include: IS&R research models, frameworks and theories; search and works tasks and situations in context; interaction between humans and machines; information acquisition, relevance and information use; research design and methodology based on a structured set of explicit variables - all set into the holistic cognitive approach. The present monograph invites the reader into a construction project - there is much research to do for a contextual understanding of IS&R. The Turn represents a wide-ranging perspective of IS&R by providing a novel unique research framework, covering both individual and social aspects of information behavior, including the generation, searching, retrieval and use of information. Regarding traditional laboratory information retrieval research, the monograph proposes the extension of research toward actors, search and work tasks, IR interaction and utility of information. Regarding traditional information seeking research, it proposes the extension toward information access technology and work task contexts. The Turn is the first synthesis of research in the broad area of IS&R ranging from systems oriented laboratory IR research to social science oriented information seeking studies. TOC:Introduction.- The Cognitive Framework for Information.- The Development of Information Seeking Research.- Systems-Oriented Information Retrieval.- Cognitive and User-Oriented Information Retrieval.- The Integrated IS&R Research Framework.- Implications of the Cognitive Framework for IS&R.- Towards a Research Program.- Conclusion.- Definitions.- References.- Index.

Footnote

- Kapitel fünf enthält einen entsprechenden Überblick über die kognitive und benutzerorientierte IR-Tradition. Es zeigt, welche anderen (als nur die labororientierten) IR-Studien durchgeführt werden können, wobei sich die Betrachtung von frühen Modellen (z.B. Taylor) über Belkins ASK-Konzept bis zu Ingwersens Modell der Polyrepräsentation, und von Bates Berrypicking-Ansatz bis zu Vakkaris "taskbased" IR-Modell erstreckt. Auch Web-IR, OKAPI und Diskussionen zum Relevanzbegriff werden hier thematisiert. - Im folgenden Kapitel schlagen die Autoren ein integriertes IS&R Forschungsmodell vor, bei dem die vielfältigen Beziehungen zwischen Informationssuchenden, Systementwicklern, Oberflächen und anderen beteiligten Aspekten berücksichtigt werden. Ihr Ansatz vereint die traditionelle Laborforschung mit verschiedenen benutzerorientierten Traditionen aus IS&R, insbesondere mit den empirischen Ansätzen zu IS und zum interaktiven IR, in einem holistischen kognitiven Modell. - Kapitel sieben untersucht die Implikationen dieses Modells für IS&R, wobei besonders ins Auge fällt, wie komplex die Anfragen von Informationssuchenden im Vergleich mit der relativen Einfachheit der Algorithmen zum Auffinden relevanter Dokumente sind. Die Abbildung der vielfältig variierenden kognitiven Zustände der Anfragesteller im Rahmen der der Systementwicklung ist sicherlich keine triviale Aufgabe. Wie dabei das Problem der Einbeziehung des zentralen Aspektes der Bedeutung gelöst werden kann, sei dahingestellt. - Im achten Kapitel wird der Versuch unternommen, die zuvor diskutierten Punkte in ein IS&R-Forschungsprogramm (Prozesse - Verhalten - Systemfunktionalität - Performanz) umzusetzen, wobei auch einige kritische Anmerkungen zur bisherigen Forschungspraxis getroffen werden. - Das abschliessende neunte Kapitel fasst das Buch kurz zusammen und kann somit auch als Einstieg in dieThematik gelesen werden. Darauffolgen noch ein sehr nützliches Glossar zu allen wichtigen Begriffen, die in dem Buch Verwendung finden, eine Bibliographie und ein Sachregister. Ingwersen und Järvelin haben hier ein sehr anspruchsvolles und dennoch lesbares Buch vorgelegt. Die gebotenen Übersichtskapitel und Diskussionen sind zwar keine Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft, decken aber einen grossen Teil der heute in dieser Disziplin aktuellen und durch laufende Forschungsaktivitäten und Publikationen berührten Teilbereiche ab. Man könnte es auch - vielleicht ein wenig überspitzt - so formulieren: Was hier thematisiert wird, ist eigentlich die moderne Informationswissenschaft. Der Versuch, die beiden Forschungstraditionen zu vereinen, wird diesem Werk sicherlich einen Platz in der Geschichte der Disziplin sichern. Nicht ganz glücklich erscheint der Titel des Buches. "The Turn" soll eine Wende bedeuten, nämlich jene hin zu einer integrierten Sicht von IS und IR. Das geht vermutlich aus dem Untertitel besser hervor, doch dieser erschien den Autoren wohl zu trocken. Schade, denn "The Turn" gibt es z.B. in unserem Verbundkatalog bereits, allerdings mit dem Zusatz "from the Cold War to a new era; the United States and the Soviet Union 1983-1990". Der Verlag, der abgesehen davon ein gediegenes (wenn auch nicht gerade wohlfeiles) Produkt vorgelegt hat, hätte derlei unscharfe Duplizierend besser verhindert. Ungeachtet dessen empfehle ich dieses wichtige Buch ohne Vorbehalt zur Anschaffung; es sollte in keiner grösseren Bibliothek fehlen."

0.010453141 = product of:
  0.062718846 = sum of:
    0.062718846 = weight(_text_:web in 4922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062718846 = score(doc=4922,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 4922, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4922)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article the authors look at the prescriptions advocated by Web search textbooks in the light of a selection of empirical data of real Web information search processes. They use the strategy of disjointed incrementalism, which is a theoretical foundation from decision making, to focus an how people face complex problems, and claim that such problem solving can be compared to the tasks searchers perform when interacting with the Web. The findings suggest that textbooks an Web searching should take into account that searchers only tend to take a certain number of sources into consideration, that the searchers adjust their goals and objectives during searching, and that searchers reconsider the usefulness of sources at different stages of their work tasks as well as their search tasks.

0.007723937 = product of:
  0.04634362 = sum of:
    0.04634362 = weight(_text_:computer in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04634362 = score(doc=767,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.28550854 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The study analyses contributions to Library and Information Science (LIS) by researchers representing various disciplines. How are such contributions associated with the choice of research topics and methodology? The study employs a quantitative content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 2015. Each article is seen as a contribution to LIS by the authors' disciplines, which are inferred from their affiliations. The unit of analysis is the article-discipline pair. Of the contribution instances, the share of LIS is one third. Computer Science contributes one fifth and Business and Economics one sixth. The latter disciplines dominate the contributions in information retrieval, information seeking, and scientific communication indicating strong influences in LIS. Correspondence analysis reveals three clusters of research, one focusing on traditional LIS with contributions from LIS and Humanities and survey-type research; another on information retrieval with contributions from Computer Science and experimental research; and the third on scientific communication with contributions from Natural Sciences and Medicine and citation analytic research. The strong differentiation of scholarly contributions in LIS hints to the fragmentation of LIS as a discipline.

0.0061791493 = product of:
  0.037074894 = sum of:
    0.037074894 = weight(_text_:computer in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037074894 = score(doc=643,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.22840683 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) is a research area both within Computer Science and Information Science. It has by and large two communities: a Computer Science oriented experimental approach and a user-oriented Information Science approach with a Social Science background. The communities hold a critical stance towards each other (e.g., Ingwersen, 1996), the latter suspecting the realism of the former, and the former suspecting the usefulness of the latter. Within Information Science the study of information seeking (IS) also has a Social Science background. There is a lot of research in each of these particular areas of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R). However, the three communities do not really communicate with each other. Why is this, and could the relationships be otherwise? Do the communities in fact belong together? Or perhaps each community is better off forgetting about the existence of the other two? We feel that the relationships between the research areas have not been properly analyzed. One way to analyze the relationships is to examine what each research area is trying to find out: which phenomena are being explained and how. We believe that IS&R research would benefit from being analytic about its frameworks, models and theories, not just at the level of meta-theories, but also much more concretely at the level of study designs. Over the years there have been calls for more context in the study of IS&R. Work tasks as well as cultural activities/interests have been proposed as the proper context for information access. For example, Wersig (1973) conceptualized information needs from the tasks perspective. He argued that in order to learn about information needs and seeking, one needs to take into account the whole active professional role of the individuals being investigated. Byström and Järvelin (1995) analysed IS processes in the light of tasks of varying complexity. Ingwersen (1996) discussed the role of tasks and their descriptions and problematic situations from a cognitive perspective on IR. Most recently, Vakkari (2003) reviewed task-based IR and Järvelin and Ingwersen (2004) proposed the extension of IS&R research toward the task context. Therefore there is much support to the task context, but how should it be applied in IS&R?

0.006159573 = product of:
  0.036957435 = sum of:
    0.036957435 = weight(_text_:web in 2533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036957435 = score(doc=2533,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2533, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2533)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The article presents the search situation transition (SST) method for analysing Web information search (WIS) processes. The idea of the method is to analyse searching behaviour, the process, in detail and connect both the searchers' actions (captured in a log) and his/her intentions and goals, which log analysis never captures. On the other hand, ex post factor surveys, while popular in WIS research, cannot capture the actual search processes. The method is presented through three facets: its domain, its procedure, and its justification. The method's domain is presented in the form of a conceptual framework which maps five central categories that influence WIS processes; the searcher, the social/organisational environment, the work task, the search task, and the process itself. The method's procedure includes various techniques for data collection and analysis. The article presents examples from real WIS processes and shows how the method can be used to identify the interplay of the categories during the processes. It is shown that the method presents a new approach in information seeking and retrieval by focusing on the search process as a phenomenon and by explicating how different information seeking factors directly affect the search process.

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, 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=1369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42