Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × author_ss:"Li, X."
  1. Li, X.; Cox, A.; Ford, N.; Creaser, C.; Fry, J.; Willett, P.: Knowledge construction by users : a content analysis framework and a knowledge construction process model for virtual product user communities (2017) 0.01
    0.005461648 = product of:
      0.03276989 = sum of:
        0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03276989 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 3574, 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=3574)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a content analysis framework and from that derive a process model of knowledge construction in the context of virtual product user communities, organization sponsored online forums where product users collaboratively construct knowledge to solve their technical problems. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a deductive and qualitative content analysis of discussion threads about solving technical problems selected from a series of virtual product user communities. Data are complemented with thematic analysis of interviews with forum members. Findings The research develops a content analysis framework for knowledge construction. It is based on a combination of existing codes derived from frameworks developed for computer-supported collaborative learning and new categories identified from the data. Analysis using this framework allows the authors to propose a knowledge construction process model showing how these elements are organized around a typical "trial and error" knowledge construction strategy. Practical implications The research makes suggestions about organizations' management of knowledge activities in virtual product user communities, including moderators' roles in facilitation. Originality/value The paper outlines a new framework for analysing knowledge activities where there is a low level of critical thinking and a model of knowledge construction by trial and error. The new framework and model can be applied in other similar contexts.
  2. Xie, H.; Li, X.; Wang, T.; Lau, R.Y.K.; Wong, T.-L.; Chen, L.; Wang, F.L.; Li, Q.: Incorporating sentiment into tag-based user profiles and resource profiles for personalized search in folksonomy (2016) 0.00
    0.0034843804 = product of:
      0.020906283 = sum of:
        0.020906283 = weight(_text_:web in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020906283 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of user-generated data in collaborative tagging (a.k.a. folksonomy-based) systems due to the prevailing of Web 2.0 communities. To effectively assist users to find their desired resources, it is critical to understand user behaviors and preferences. Tag-based profile techniques, which model users and resources by a vector of relevant tags, are widely employed in folksonomy-based systems. This is mainly because that personalized search and recommendations can be facilitated by measuring relevance between user profiles and resource profiles. However, conventional measurements neglect the sentiment aspect of user-generated tags. In fact, tags can be very emotional and subjective, as users usually express their perceptions and feelings about the resources by tags. Therefore, it is necessary to take sentiment relevance into account into measurements. In this paper, we present a novel generic framework SenticRank to incorporate various sentiment information to various sentiment-based information for personalized search by user profiles and resource profiles. In this framework, content-based sentiment ranking and collaborative sentiment ranking methods are proposed to obtain sentiment-based personalized ranking. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of integrating sentiment information to address the problem of the personalized tag-based search in collaborative tagging systems. Moreover, we compare the proposed sentiment-based personalized search with baselines in the experiments, the results of which have verified the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In addition, we study the influences by popular sentiment dictionaries, and SenticNet is the most prominent knowledge base to boost the performance of personalized search in folksonomy.
  3. Li, X.; Schijvenaars, B.J.A.; Rijke, M.de: Investigating queries and search failures in academic search (2017) 0.00
    0.0034843804 = product of:
      0.020906283 = sum of:
        0.020906283 = weight(_text_:web in 5033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020906283 = score(doc=5033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5033)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Academic search concerns the retrieval and profiling of information objects in the domain of academic research. In this paper we reveal important observations of academic search queries, and provide an algorithmic solution to address a type of failure during search sessions: null queries. We start by providing a general characterization of academic search queries, by analyzing a large-scale transaction log of a leading academic search engine. Unlike previous small-scale analyses of academic search queries, we find important differences with query characteristics known from web search. E.g., in academic search there is a substantially bigger proportion of entity queries, and a heavier tail in query length distribution. We then focus on search failures and, in particular, on null queries that lead to an empty search engine result page, on null sessions that contain such null queries, and on users who are prone to issue null queries. In academic search approximately 1 in 10 queries is a null query, and 25% of the sessions contain a null query. They appear in different types of search sessions, and prevent users from achieving their search goal. To address the high rate of null queries in academic search, we consider the task of providing query suggestions. Specifically we focus on a highly frequent query type: non-boolean informational queries. To this end we need to overcome query sparsity and make effective use of session information. We find that using entities helps to surface more relevant query suggestions in the face of query sparsity. We also find that query suggestions should be conditioned on the type of session in which they are offered to be more effective. After casting the session classification problem as a multi-label classification problem, we generate session-conditional query suggestions based on predicted session type. We find that this session-conditional method leads to significant improvements over a generic query suggestion method. Personalization yields very little further improvements over session-conditional query suggestions.
  4. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00
    0.0025074114 = product of:
      0.0150444675 = sum of:
        0.0150444675 = product of:
          0.030088935 = sum of:
            0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030088935 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.044416238 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22