Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033387464 = product of:
  0.08346866 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=917,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 917, 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=917)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

I started my professional career in library and information science because of my great interest in knowledge organization. The more experience I gained in the profession, the more I realized how crucial it is to understand which organization would be best for each group of users. This in turn requires an understanding of how users seek information. And so now my focus is an studying information seeking and searching behavior. Throughout the relatively long course of changing my focus, I followed Pauline Cochrane's writings. Now I can say that she has been among the first to have a "user-centered approach" to knowledge organization, and she has used the term three years before it became a mainstream phrase. The following is a short discussion about the usercentered approach which was presented in a workshop in 1997.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.011592272 = product of:
  0.057961356 = sum of:
    0.057961356 = weight(_text_:it in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057961356 = score(doc=2103,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38346338 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Direct observations and analysis of searching behaviour of professional online searchers shed light on thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system - a system that mediates between online databases and end users. Examination of searchers' decisions about the selection of search keys, and of the knowledge about terminological and subject properties that are employed, illuminated the requirements for a thesaurus that will facilitate the selection of search keys. Expert knowledge is needed when: a term occurs very frequently in the database; it has many synonyms; it is ambiguous; it is vague; or its meaning is context dependent. To diagnose such terms and to give advice, a thesaurus would be used together with a variety of text sources such as databases' thesauri, machine-readable dictionaries and glossaries and the databases' text. The thesaurus would be a knowledge structure that indicates frequency data, hedges, and a classificatory structure; both intellectual and automated procedures would be used to create it. Such a knowledge structure in place would require a new approach to text analysis and to the construction of controlled vocabularies

0.011592272 = product of:
  0.057961356 = sum of:
    0.057961356 = weight(_text_:it in 2949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057961356 = score(doc=2949,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38346338 = fieldWeight in 2949, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2949)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article analyzes Web searching behavior for homework assignments of high school students through field observations in class and the terminal with students thinking alound, and through interviews with various participants, including the teacher and librarian. Students performed focused searching and progressed through a search swiftly and flexibly. They used landmarks and assumed that one can always start a new search and ask for help. They were satisfied with their searches and the results, but impatient with slow response. The students enjoyed searching the Web because it had a variety of formats, it showed pictures, it covered a multitude of subjects and it provided easy access to information. Difficulties and problems students encountered emphasize the need for training to all involved, and for a system design that is based on user seeking and searching behavior

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=1659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The model of operationalist and conceptualist searching styles describes searching behavior of experienced online searchers. It is based on the systematic observation of five experienced online searchers doing their regular, job-related searches, and on the analysis of 10 to 13 searches conducted by each of them. Operationalist searchers aim at optimal strategies to achieve precise retrieval; they use a large range of system capabilities in their interaction. They preserve the specific meaning of the request, and the aim of their interactions is an answer set representing the request precisely. Conceptualist searchers analyze a request by seeking to fit it into a faceted structure. They first enter the facet that represents the most important aspect of the request. Their search is then centered on retrieving subsets from this primary set by introducing additional facets. In contrast to the operationalists, they are primarily concerned with recall. During the interaction they preserve the faceted structure, but may change the specific meaning of the request. Although not comprehensive, the model aids in recognizing special and individual characteristics of searching behavior which provide explanations of previous research and guidelines for further investigations into the search process

0.0070806327 = product of:
  0.035403162 = sum of:
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 2336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=2336,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2336, 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=2336)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 8259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=8259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 8259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8259)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Two distinct approaches describe the process of indexing. The document-oriented approach claims that indexing summarizes or represents the content of a document. The user-oriented approach requires that indexing reflect the requests for which a document might be relevant. Most indexing, in practice as well as in theory, subscribe to both, but the document-oriented approach has enjoyed most viability. While request-oriented indexing is a user-centered approach, it is very difficult to implement with human, a priori indexing. Automated indexing with its dynamic and flexible nature is most fit to tailor indexing to requirements of individual users and requests, yet most of current research in the area focuses on the development of global methods. Regardless of the method, user-centered indexing cannot be developed before searching behavior is understood better

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A review of studies about searching beganiour in image retrieval suggests that retrieval tasks may affect searching behaviour. Retrieval tasks occur along a spectrum starting with the Data Pole, which involves retrieval of images for the information which the image include, and ending with the Objects Pole, which concerns the retrieval of images as objects. Each Pole generates a certain searching behaviour which has characteristics opposing those of the other pole. These characteristics suggest that: relevance feedback may not be useful for tasks on the Object Pole; measuring precision on the Data Pole should be replaced with another measurement of effort and time, while on the Objects Pole, the quality of browsing sets and the precision of the browsing process should be measured instead of precision; and recall is not useful for the Data Pole, and requires much exploration before it can be adopted for the Object Pole. Additional research in searching behaviour and about performance measurement will improve retrieval from image databases

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 5695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=5695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 5695, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5695)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

To provide advice for online searching about term selection and query expansion, an intermediary expert system should indicate a terminological knowledge structure. Terminological attributes could provide the foundation of a knowledge base, and knowledge acquisition could rely on knowledge base techniques coupled with statistical techniques. The strategies of expert searchers would provide 1 source of knowledge. The knowledge structure would include 3 constructs for each term: frequency data, a hedge, and a position in a classification scheme. Switching vocabularies could provide a meta-scheme and facilitate the interoperability of databases in similar subjects. To develop such knowledge structure, research should focus on terminological attributes, word and phrase disambiguation, automated text processing, and the role of thesauri and classification schemes in indexing and retrieval. It should develop techniques that combine knowledge base and statistical methods and that consider user preferences

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2997)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

While most research in the area of human-information behavior has focused an a single dimension-either the psychological or the social-this case study demonstrated the importance of a multidimensional approach. The Cognitive Work Analysis framework guided this field study of one event of collaborative information retrieval (CIR) carried out by design engineers at Microsoft, including observations and interviews. Various dimensions explained the motives for this CIR event and the challenges the participants encountered: the cognitive dimension, the specific task and decision, the organization of the teamwork, and the organizational culture. Even though it is difficult at times to separate one dimension from another, and all are interdependent, the analysis uncovered several reasons for design engineers to engage in CIR, such as when they are new to the organization or the team, when the information lends itself to various interpretations, or when most of the needed information is not documented. Similar multidimensional studies will enhance our understanding of human-information behavior.