Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027890932 = product of:
  0.08367279 = sum of:
    0.04434892 = weight(_text_:web in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04434892 = score(doc=1867,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=1867,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A brief communication appearing in this journal ranked UK-based LIS and (some) IR academics by their h-index using data derived from the Thomson ISI Web of Science(TM) (WoS). In this brief communication, the same academics were re-ranked, using other popular citation databases. It was found that for academics who publish more in computer science forums, their h was significantly different due to highly cited papers missed by WoS; consequently, their rank changed substantially. The study was widened to a broader set of UK-based LIS and IR academics in which results showed similar statistically significant differences. A variant of h, hmx, was introduced that allowed a ranking of the academics using all citation databases together.

Object

Web of Science

0.02550099 = product of:
  0.07650297 = sum of:
    0.05243182 = weight(_text_:computer in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05243182 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
    0.024071148 = product of:
      0.048142295 = sum of:
        0.048142295 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048142295 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.013066426 = product of:
  0.078398556 = sum of:
    0.078398556 = weight(_text_:web in 3318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078398556 = score(doc=3318,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 3318, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3318)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We analyze 18- million rows of Wi-Fi access logs collected over a 1-year period from over 120,000 anonymized users at an inner city shopping mall. The anonymized data set gathered from an opt-in system provides users' approximate physical location as well as web browsing and some search history. Such data provide a unique opportunity to analyze the interaction between people's behavior in physical retail spaces and their web behavior, serving as a proxy to their information needs. We found that (a) there is a weekly periodicity in users' visits to the mall; (b) people tend to visit similar mall locations and web content during their repeated visits to the mall; (c) around 60% of registered Wi-Fi users actively browse the web, and around 10% of them use Wi-Fi for accessing web search engines; (d) people are likely to spend a relatively constant amount of time browsing the web while the duration of their visit may vary; (e) the physical spatial context has a small, but significant, influence on the web content that indoor users browse; and (f) accompanying users tend to access resources from the same web domains.

0.012195333 = product of:
  0.073171996 = sum of:
    0.073171996 = weight(_text_:web in 2852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073171996 = score(doc=2852,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 2852, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2852)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This brief communication describes the results of a questionnaire examining certain aspects of the Web-based information seeking practices of university students. The results are contrasted with past work showing that queries to Web search engines can be assigned to one of a series of categories: navigational, informational, and transactional. The survey results suggest that a large group of queries, which in the past would have been classified as informational, have become at least partially navigational. We contend that this change has occurred because of the rise of large Web sites holding particular types of information, such as Wikipedia and the Internet Movie Database.

0.009268723 = product of:
  0.05561234 = sum of:
    0.05561234 = weight(_text_:computer in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05561234 = score(doc=2347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.34261024 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The question of which type of computer science (CS) publication-conference or journal-is likely to result in more citations for a published paper is addressed. A series of data sets are examined and joined in order to analyze the citations of over 195,000 conference papers and 108,000 journal papers. Two means of evaluating the citations of journals and conferences are explored: h5 and average citations per paper; it was found that h5 has certain biases that make it a difficult measure to use (despite it being the main measure used by Google Scholar). Results from the analysis show that CS, as a discipline, values conferences as a publication venue more highly than any other academic field of study. The analysis also shows that a small number of elite CS conferences have the highest average paper citation rate of any publication type, although overall, citation rates in conferences are no higher than in journals. It is also shown that the length of a paper is correlated with citation rate.

0.008710952 = product of:
  0.052265707 = sum of:
    0.052265707 = weight(_text_:web in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052265707 = score(doc=2926,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We examined whether the microblog comments given by people after reading a web document could be exploited to improve the accuracy of a web document summarization system. We examined the effect of social information (i.e., tweets) on the accuracy of the generated summaries by comparing the user preference for TBS (tweet-biased summary) with GS (generic summary). The result of crowdsourcing-based evaluation shows that the user preference for TBS was significantly higher than GS. We also took random samples of the documents to see the performance of summaries in a traditional evaluation using ROUGE, which, in general, TBS was also shown to be better than GS. We further analyzed the influence of the number of tweets pointed to a web document on summarization accuracy, finding a positive moderate correlation between the number of tweets pointed to a web document and the performance of generated TBS as measured by user preference. The results show that incorporating social information into the summary generation process can improve the accuracy of summary. The reason for people choosing one summary over another in a crowdsourcing-based evaluation is also presented in this article.

0.0065539777 = product of:
  0.039323866 = sum of:
    0.039323866 = weight(_text_:computer in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039323866 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Finding a place of interest (e.g., a restaurant, hotel, or attraction) is often related to a group information need, however, the actual multiparty collaboration in such searches has not been explored, and little is known about its significance and related practices. We surveyed 100 computer science students and found that 94% (of respondents) searched for places online; 87% had done so as part of a group. Search for place by multiple active participants was experienced by 78%, with group sizes typically being 2 or 3. Search occurred in a range of settings with both desktop PCs and mobile devices. Difficulties were reported with coordinating tasks, sharing results, and making decisions. The results show that finding a place of interest is a quite different group-based search than other multiparty information-seeking activities. The results suggest that local search systems, their interfaces and the devices that access them can be made more usable for collaborative search if they include support for coordination, sharing of results, and decision making.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 4114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=4114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 4114, 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=4114)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Folder navigation is the main way that personal computer users retrieve their own files. People dedicate considerable time to creating systematic structures to facilitate such retrieval. Despite the prevalence of both manual organization and navigation, there is very little systematic data about how people actually carry out navigation, or about the relation between organization structure and retrieval parameters. The aims of our research were therefore to study users' folder structure, personal file navigation, and the relations between them. We asked 296 participants to retrieve 1,131 of their active files and analyzed each of the 5,035 navigation steps in these retrievals. Folder structures were found to be shallow (files were retrieved from mean depth of 2.86 folders), with small folders (a mean of 11.82 files per folder) containing many subfolders (M=10.64). Navigation was largely successful and efficient with participants successfully accessing 94% of their files and taking 14.76 seconds to do this on average. Retrieval time and success depended on folder size and depth. We therefore found the users' decision to avoid both deep structure and large folders to be adaptive. Finally, we used a predictive model to formulate the effect of folder depth and folder size on retrieval time, and suggested an optimization point in this trade-off.

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 1129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=1129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1129)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this paper we present results from an investigation of religious information searching based on analyzing log files from a large general-purpose search engine. From approximately 15 million queries, we identified 124,422 that were part of 60,759 user sessions. We present a method for categorizing queries based on related terms and show differences in search patterns between religious searches and web searching more generally. We also investigate the search patterns found in queries related to 5 religions: Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. Different search patterns are found to emerge. Results from this study complement existing studies of religious information searching and provide a level of detailed analysis not reported to date. We show, for example, that sessions involving religion-related queries tend to last longer, that the lengths of religion-related queries are greater, and that the number of unique URLs clicked is higher when compared to all queries. The results of the study can serve to provide information on what this large population of users is actually searching for.

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22