Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04416885 = product of:
  0.07361475 = sum of:
    0.040101882 = weight(_text_:wide in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040101882 = score(doc=2019,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
    0.02175598 = weight(_text_:web in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02175598 = score(doc=2019,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2019, 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=2019)
    0.011756882 = product of:
      0.023513764 = sum of:
        0.023513764 = weight(_text_:research in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023513764 = score(doc=2019,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.17831147 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Evaluation has always been a strong element of Information Retrieval (IR) research, much of our focus being on how we evaluate IR algorithms. As a research field we have benefited greatly from initiatives such as Cranfield, TREC, CLEF and INEX that have added to our knowledge of how to create test collections, the reliability of system-based evaluation criteria and our understanding of how to interpret the results of an algorithmic evaluation. In contrast, evaluations whose main focus is the user experience of searching have not yet reached the same level of maturity. Such evaluations are complex to create and assess due to the increased number of variables to incorporate within the study, the lack of standard tools available (for example, test collections) and the difficulty of selecting appropriate evaluation criteria for study. In spite of the complicated nature of user-centred evaluations, this form of evaluation is necessary to understand the effectiveness of individual IR systems and user search interactions. The growing incorporation of users into the evaluation process reflects the changing nature of IR within society; for example, more and more people have access to IR systems through Internet search engines but have little training or guidance in how to use these systems effectively. Similarly, new types of search system and new interactive IR facilities are becoming available to wide groups of end-users. In this special topic issue we present papers that tackle the methodological issues of evaluating interactive search systems. Methodologies can be presented at different levels; the papers by Blandford et al. and Petrelli present whole methodological approaches for evaluating interactive systems whereas those by Göker and Myrhaug and López Ostenero et al., consider what makes an appropriate evaluation methodological approach for specific retrieval situations. Any methodology must consider the nature of the methodological components, the instruments and processes by which we evaluate our systems. A number of papers have examined these issues in detail: Käki and Aula focus on specific methodological issues for the evaluation of Web search interfaces, Lopatovska and Mokros present alternate measures of retrieval success, Tenopir et al. examine the affective and cognitive verbalisations that occur within user studies and Kelly et al. analyse questionnaires, one of the basic tools for evaluations. The range of topics in this special issue as a whole nicely illustrates the variety and complexity by which user-centred evaluation of IR systems is undertaken.

0.023697173 = product of:
  0.05924293 = sum of:
    0.038459502 = weight(_text_:web in 379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038459502 = score(doc=379,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 379, 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=379)
    0.020783428 = product of:
      0.041566856 = sum of:
        0.041566856 = weight(_text_:research in 379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041566856 = score(doc=379,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 379, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Eye movement data can provide an in-depth view of human reasoning and the decision-making process, and modern information retrieval (IR) research can benefit from the analysis of this type of data. The aim of this research was to examine the relationship between relevance criteria use and visual behavior in the context of predictive relevance judgments. To address this objective, a multimethod research design was employed that involved observation of participants' eye movements, talk-aloud protocols, and postsearch interviews. Specifically, the results reported in this article came from the analysis of 281 predictive relevance judgments made by 24 participants using the Google search engine. We present a novel stepwise methodological framework for the analysis of relevance judgments and eye movements on the Web and show new patterns of relevance criteria use during predictive relevance judgment. For example, the findings showed an effect of ranking order and surrogate components (Title, Summary, and URL) on the use of relevance criteria. Also, differences were observed in the cognitive effort spent between very relevant and not relevant judgments. We conclude with the implications of this study for IR research.

0.015987316 = product of:
  0.07993658 = sum of:
    0.07993658 = weight(_text_:web in 5255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07993658 = score(doc=5255,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.5299281 = fieldWeight in 5255, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5255)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the criteria used by online searchers when assessing the relevance of Web pages for information-seeking tasks. Twenty-four participants were given three tasks each, and they indicated the Features of Web pages that they used when deciding about the usefulness of the pages in relation to the tasks. These tasks were presented within the context of a simulated work-task situation. We investigated the relative utility of features identified by participants (Web page content, structure, and quality) and how the importance of these features is affected by the type of information-seeking task performed and the stage of the search. The results of this study provide a set of criteria used by searchers to decide about the utility of Web pages for different types of tasks. Such criteria can have implications for the design of systems that use or recommend Web pages.

0.012161963 = product of:
  0.060809813 = sum of:
    0.060809813 = weight(_text_:web in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060809813 = score(doc=1081,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The aim of the work described in this paper is to evaluate the influencing effects of query-biased summaries in web searching. For this purpose, a summarisation system has been developed, and a summary tailored to the user's query is generated automatically for each document retrieved. The system aims to provide both a better means of assessing document relevance than titles or abstracts typical of many web search result lists. Through visiting each result page at retrieval-time, the system provides the user with an idea of the current page content and thus deals with the dynamic nature of the web. To examine the effectiveness of this approach, a task-oriented, comparative evaluation between four different web retrieval systems was performed; two that use query-biased summarisation, and two that use the standard ranked titles/abstracts approach. The results from the evaluation indicate that query-biased summarisation techniques appear to be more useful and effective in helping users gauge document relevance than the traditional ranked titles/abstracts approach. The same methodology was used to compare the effectiveness of two of the web's major search engines; AltaVista and Google.

0.012030563 = product of:
  0.060152818 = sum of:
    0.060152818 = weight(_text_:wide in 5057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060152818 = score(doc=5057,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 5057, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5057)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this article, the authors discuss reretrieving personal information objects and relate the task to recovering from lapse(s) in memory. They propose that memory lapses impede users from successfully refinding the information they need. Their hypothesis is that by learning more about memory lapses in noncomputing contexts and about how people cope and recover from these lapses, we can better inform the design of personal information management (PIM) tools and improve the user's ability to reaccess and reuse objects. They describe a diary study that investigates the everyday memory problems of 25 people from a wide range of backgrounds. Based on the findings, they present a series of principles that they hypothesize will improve the design of PIM tools. This hypothesis is validated by an evaluation of a tool for managing personal photographs, which was designed with respect to the authors' findings. The evaluation suggests that users' performance when refinding objects can be improved by building personal information management tools to support characteristics of human memory.

0.010419055 = product of:
  0.052095275 = sum of:
    0.052095275 = sum of:
      0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020783428 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.031311847 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031311847 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56

0.0057596727 = product of:
  0.028798362 = sum of:
    0.028798362 = product of:
      0.057596724 = sum of:
        0.057596724 = weight(_text_:research in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057596724 = score(doc=638,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.43677214 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Relevance is the distinguishing feature of IR research. It is the intricacy of relevance, and its basis in human decision-making, which defines and shapes our research field. Relevance as a concept cuts across the spectrum of information seeking and IR research from investigations into information seeking behaviours to theoretical models of IR. Given their mutual dependence on relevance we might predict a strong relationship between information seeking and retrieval in how they regard and discuss the role of relevance within our research programmes. However often, too often, information seeking and IR have been continued as independent research traditions: IR research ignoring the extensive, user-based frameworks developed by information seeking and information seeking underestimating the influence of IR systems and interfaces within the information seeking process. When these two disciplines come together we often find the strongest research, research that is motivated by an understanding of what cognitive processes require support during information seeking, and an understanding of how this support might be provided by an IR system. The aim of this chapter is to investigate this common ground of research, in particular to examine the central notion of relevance that underpins both information seeking and IR research. It seeks to investigate how our understanding of relevance as a process of human decision making can, and might, influence our design of interactive IR systems. It does not cover every area of IR research, or each area in the same depth; rather we try to single out the areas where the nature of relevance, and its implications, is driving the research agenda. We start by providing a brief introduction to how relevance has been treated so far in the literature and then consider the key areas where issues of relevance are of current concern. Specifically the chapter discusses the difficulties of making and interpreting relevance assessments, the role and meaning of differentiated relevance assessments, the specific role of time within information seeking, and the large, complex issue of relevance within evaluations of IR systems. In each area we try to establish where the two fields of IR and information seeking are establishing fruitful collaborations, where there is a gap for prospective collaboration and the possible difficulties in establishing mutual aims.

0.005438995 = product of:
  0.027194975 = sum of:
    0.027194975 = weight(_text_:web in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027194975 = score(doc=3881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3881, 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=3881)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Web searchers typically fall to view search results beyond the first page nor fully examine those results presented to them. In this article we describe an approach that encourages a deeper examination of the contents of the document set retrieved in response to a searcher's query. The approach shifts the focus of perusal and interaction away from potentially uninformative document surrogates (such as titles, sentence fragments, and URLs) to actual document content, and uses this content to drive the information seeking process. Current search interfaces assume searchers examine results document-by-document. In contrast our approach extracts, ranks, and presents the contents of the top-ranked document set. We use query-relevant topranking sentences extracted from the top documents at retrieval time as fine-grained representations of topranked document content and, when combined in a ranked list, an overview of these documents. The interaction of the searcher provides implicit evidence that is used to reorder the sentences where appropriate. We evaluate our approach in three separate user studies, each applying these sentences in a different way. The findings of these studies show that top-ranking sentences can facilitate effective information access.

0.004647316 = product of:
  0.023236578 = sum of:
    0.023236578 = product of:
      0.046473157 = sum of:
        0.046473157 = weight(_text_:research in 1785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046473157 = score(doc=1785,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.352419 = fieldWeight in 1785, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine how various types of TREC data can be used to better understand relevance and serve as test-bed for exploring relevance. The author proposes that there are many interesting studies that can be performed on the TREC data collections that are not directly related to evaluating systems but to learning more about human judgements of information and relevance and that these studies can provide useful research questions for other types of investigation. Design/methodology/approach - Through several case studies the author shows how existing data from TREC can be used to learn more about the factors that may affect relevance judgements and interactive search decisions and answer new research questions for exploring relevance. Findings - The paper uncovers factors, such as familiarity, interest and strictness of relevance criteria, that affect the nature of relevance assessments within TREC, contrasting these against findings from user studies of relevance. Research limitations/implications - The research only considers certain uses of TREC data and assessment given by professional relevance assessors but motivates further exploration of the TREC data so that the research community can further exploit the effort involved in the construction of TREC test collections. Originality/value - The paper presents an original viewpoint on relevance investigations and TREC itself by motivating TREC as a source of inspiration on understanding relevance rather than purely as a source of evaluation material.

0.0035997957 = product of:
  0.017998978 = sum of:
    0.017998978 = product of:
      0.035997957 = sum of:
        0.035997957 = weight(_text_:research in 835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035997957 = score(doc=835,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.2729826 = fieldWeight in 835, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine how different aspects of an assessor's context, in particular their knowledge of a search topic, their interest in the search topic and their confidence in assessing relevance for a topic, affect the relevance judgements made and the assessor's ability to predict which documents they will assess as being relevant. Design/methodology/approach - The study was conducted as part of the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) HARD track. Using a specially constructed questionnaire information was sought on TREC assessors' personal context and, using the TREC assessments gathered, the responses were correlated to the questionnaire questions and the final relevance decisions. Findings - This study found that each of the three factors (interest, knowledge and confidence) had an affect on how many documents were assessed as relevant and the balance between how many documents were marked as marginally or highly relevant. Also these factors are shown to affect an assessors' ability to predict what information they will finally mark as being relevant. Research limitations/implications - The major limitation is that the research is conducted within the TREC initiative. This means that we can report on results but cannot report on discussions with the assessors. The research implications are numerous but mainly on the effect of personal context on the outcomes of a user study. Practical implications - One major consequence is that we should take more account of how we construct search tasks for IIR evaluation to create tasks that are interesting and relevant to experimental subjects. Originality/value - Examining different search variables within one study to compare the relative effects on these variables on the search outcomes.

0.0029096797 = product of:
  0.014548399 = sum of:
    0.014548399 = product of:
      0.029096797 = sum of:
        0.029096797 = weight(_text_:research in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029096797 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this article, I propose the concept of resonance as a useful one for describing what it means to experience relevance. Based on an extensive interdisciplinary review, I provide a novel framework that presents resonance as a spectrum of experience with a multitude of outcomes ranging from a sense of harmony and coherence to life transformation. I argue that resonance has different properties to the more traditional interpretation of relevance and provides a better system of explanation of what it means to experience relevance. I show how traditional approaches to relevance and resonance work in a complementary fashion and outline how resonance may present distinct new lines of research into relevance theory.

0.0024940113 = product of:
  0.012470056 = sum of:
    0.012470056 = product of:
      0.024940113 = sum of:
        0.024940113 = weight(_text_:research in 964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024940113 = score(doc=964,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 964, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Searchers can face problems finding the information they seek. One reason for this is that they may have difficulty devising queries to express their information needs. In this article, we describe an approach that uses unobtrusive monitoring of interaction to proactively support searchers. The approach chooses terms to better represent information needs by monitoring searcher interaction with different representations of top-ranked documents. Information needs are dynamic and can change as a searcher views information. The approach we propose gathers evidence on potential changes in these needs and uses this evidence to choose new retrieval strategies. We present an evaluation of how well our technique estimates information needs, how well it estimates changes in these needs and the appropriateness of the interface support it offers. The results are presented and the avenues for future research identified.

0.002078343 = product of:
  0.010391714 = sum of:
    0.010391714 = product of:
      0.020783428 = sum of:
        0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 5035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020783428 = score(doc=5035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 5035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information need is a fundamental concept within Information Science. Robert Taylor's seminal contribution in 1968 was to propose a division of information needs into four levels: the visceral, conscious, formalized and compromised levels of information need. Taylor's contribution has provided much inspiration to Information Science research but this has largely remained at the discursive and conceptual level. In this paper, we present a novel empirical investigation of Taylor's information need classification. We analyse the linguistic differences between conscious and formalized needs using several hundred postings to four major Internet discussion groups. We show that descriptions of conscious needs are more emotional in tone, involve more sensory perception and contain different temporal dimensions than descriptions of formalized needs. We show that it is possible to differentiate levels of information need based on linguistic patterns and that the language used to express information needs can reflect an individual's understanding of their information problem. This has implications for the theory of information needs and practical implications for supporting moderators of online news groups in responding to information needs and for developing automated support for classifying information needs.