Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.056655407 = product of:
  0.113310814 = sum of:
    0.0963339 = weight(_text_:digital in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963339 = score(doc=1003,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4872566 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1003, 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=1003)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Young undergraduate college students are often described as "digital natives," presumed to prefer living and working in completely digital information environments. In reality, their world is part-paper/part-digital, in constant transition among successive forms of digital storage and communication devices. Studying for a degree is the daily work of these young people, and effective management of paper and digital academic materials and resources contributes crucially to their success in life. Students must also constantly manage their work against deadlines to meet their course and university requirements. This study, following the "Personal Information Management" (PIM) paradigm, examines student academic information management under these various constraints and pressures. A total of 41 18- to 22-year-old students were interviewed and observed regarding the content, structure, and uses of their immediate working environment within their dormitory rooms. Students exhibited remarkable creativity and variety in the mixture of automated and manual resources and devices used to support their academic work. The demands of a yearlong procession of assignments, papers, projects, and examinations increase the importance of time management activities and influence much of their behavior. Results provide insights on student use of various kinds of information technology and their overall planning and management of information associated with their studies.

0.048041813 = product of:
  0.096083626 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 4563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=4563,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 4563, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4563)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 4563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=4563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 4563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4563)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The study reported here investigated the search behaviour patterns of nanoscience and nanotechnology searchers as revealed by transaction log analysis of the NANOnetBASE electronic book digital library. This paper examines the patterns and strategies of nano searchers' query formulation and reformulation, then explores the extent of interdisciplinarity in search queries using the INSPEC and Compendex thesauri. The results show certain query formulation patterns associated with searching in an emerging and interdisciplinary area of nanotechnology such as: the use of multiword and compound query terms, extensive use of search terms beginning with the prefix "nano," hyphenated terms, spelling variations, a large number of query reformulations, and the use of acronyms. The results also indicate that 62% of the unique top terms resulting from mapping users' query terms to the INSPEC Classification codes represented two or more disciplines, specifically terms associated with the Classification code "A" representing "physics." The results have implications for information organization and representation, user interface design and federated searching in digital libraries and multi-subject databases.

0.036035247 = product of:
  0.072070494 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Hundreds of scholarly studies have investigated various aspects of Wikipedia. Although a number of literature reviews have provided overviews of this vast body of research, none has specifically focused on the readers of Wikipedia and issues concerning its readership. In this systematic literature review, we review 99 studies to synthesize current knowledge regarding the readership of Wikipedia and provide an analysis of research methods employed. The scholarly research has found that Wikipedia is popular not only for lighter topics such as entertainment but also for more serious topics such as health and legal information. Scholars, librarians, and students are common users, and Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity for educating students in digital literacy. We conclude with a summary of key findings, implications for researchers, and implications for the Wikipedia community.

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=2016,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 2016, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2016)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An increasing number of library user studies are employing ethnographic techniques as an alternative to more traditional qualitative methods such as surveys. Such techniques, however, are only beginning to see significant application to catalog user studies. Beginning with a discussion of the applied ethnographic method and its current usage within the field of Library and Information Science research, this article will assess methods that have traditionally been applied to studies of catalog users and present the case for the potential of an ethnographic approach for future catalog evaluation and design.

0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=961,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 961, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=961)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

According to estimates the mobile device will soon be the main platform for searching the web, and yet our knowledge of how mobile consumers use information, and how that differs from desktops/laptops users, is imperfect. The paper sets out to correct this through an analysis of the logs of a major cultural website, Europeana. The behavior of nearly 70,000 mobile users was examined over a period of more than a year and compared with that for PC users of the same site and for the same period. The analyses conducted include: size and growth of use, time patterns of use; geographical location of users, digital collections used; comparative information-seeking behavior using dashboard metrics, clustering of users according to their information seeking, and user satisfaction. The main findings were that mobile users were the fastest-growing group and will rise rapidly to a million by December 2012 and that their visits were very different in the aggregate from those arising from fixed platforms. Mobile visits could be described as being information "lite": typically shorter, less interactive, and less content viewed per visit. Use took a social rather than office pattern, with mobile use peaking at nights and weekends. The variation between different mobile devices was large, with information seeking on the iPad similar to that for PCs and laptops and that for smartphones very different indeed. The research further confirms that information-seeking behavior is platform-specific and the latest platforms are changing it all again. Websites will have to adapt.

0.008720686 = product of:
  0.034882743 = sum of:
    0.034882743 = product of:
      0.069765486 = sum of:
        0.069765486 = weight(_text_:project in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069765486 = score(doc=2265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reports on a field study of the information behavior of Grade 8 students researching an inquiry-based class history project. Kuhlthau's 7-stage Information Search Process (ISP) model forms the conceptual framework for the study. The aim of the study was to define an end game for the ISP model by answering the following question: How do the student participants' feelings, thoughts, and information behavior lead to the construction of new knowledge? Study findings tentatively indicate that knowledge construction results from an iterative process between the student and information, which can be divided into 3 phases. In the first phase, the students formulate questions from their previous knowledge to start knowledge construction; in the second phase, newly found topic information causes students to ask questions; and in the third phase, the students answer the questions asked by this newly found topic information. Based on these results and Kuhlthau's own ISP stage 7 assessment definition of the ISP model end game, we propose a model of knowledge construction inserted as an extra row in the ISP model framework.

0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 87) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=87,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 87, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=87)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the summer of 2008 all University of North Carolina libraries switched from a traditional library catalog interface supporting text-based searching (TextOnly) to a text and facet-based interface (TextFacet) to improve users' search experiences. This study seeks to understand the differences between these two interfaces and how they affect the search experience of the novice user. In this study, 40 participants were asked to search for resources using both interfaces. Their search times and accuracy were measured across three types of search tasks (known, partially known, and exploratory). After completing the searches, they were asked a series of questions about their experiences. The data were analyzed in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in both search interfaces. Thirty-six out of 40 participants preferred the TextFacet interface to the TextOnly interface. Using three dependent variables-time, accuracy, and rating-the two interfaces were compared and interactions were tested with the three task types. Search times for the TextFacet were shorter and participants preferred the TextFacet search interface over the TextOnly search interface. Performances across the three task types were different in terms of search time. The partially known and exploratory task types showed similar distributions for rating and accuracy. These distributions were distinctly different from the known task type. The results of this study may assist libraries in developing improved library catalog search interfaces that utilize facets as well as text searching.

0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 1824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=1824,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 1824, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1824)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since the adoption of faceted search in a small number of academic libraries in 2006, faceted search interfaces have gained popularity in academic and public libraries. This article clarifies whether faceted search improves the interactions between searchers and library catalogs and sheds light on ways that facets are used during a library search. To study searchers' behaviors in natural situations, we collected from the servers a data set with more than 1.5 million useful search logs. Logs were parsed, statistically analyzed, and manually studied using visualization tools to gain a general understanding of how facets are used in the search process. A user experiment with 24 subjects was conducted to further understand contextual information, such as the searchers' motivations and perceptions. The results indicate that most searchers were able to understand the concept of facets naturally and easily. The faceted search was not able to shorten the search time but was able to improve the search accuracy. Facets were used more for open-ended tasks and difficult tasks that require more effort to learn, investigate, and explore. Overall, the results weaved a detailed "story" about the ways that people use facets and the ways that facets help people use library catalogs.

0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=4129,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study examined how searchers interact with a web-based, faceted library catalog when conducting exploratory searches. It applied multiple methods, including eye tracking and stimulated recall interviews, to investigate important aspects of faceted search interface use, specifically: (a) searcher gaze behavior-what components of the interface searchers look at; (b) how gaze behavior differs when training is and is not provided; (c) how gaze behavior changes as searchers become familiar with the interface; and (d) how gaze behavior differs depending on the stage of the search process. The results confirm previous findings that facets account for approximately 10-30% of interface use. They show that providing a 60-second video demonstration increased searcher use of facets. However, searcher use of the facets did not evolve during the study session, which suggests that searchers may not, on their own, rapidly apply the faceted interfaces. The findings also suggest that searcher use of interface elements varied by the stage of their search during the session, with higher use of facets during decision-making stages. These findings will be of interest to librarians and interface designers who wish to maximize the value of faceted searching for patrons, as well as to researchers who study search behavior.

0.0067679947 = product of:
  0.027071979 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 5440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=5440,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 5440, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5440)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries increasingly offer much of their collection online, rendering it invisible or unavailable to readers who, for reasons of information experience, prefer to browse the shelves. Although the evidence that shelf browsing is an important part of information behavior is increasing, information browsing as a behavior is somewhat of a black box (in contrast to web browsing, which is relatively well understood). It seems likely from early work that browsing is not, in fact, a monolithic behavior, but rather a set of behaviors and goals. The typologies presented in these works, however, are of a too high level to offer much insight into what support is needed for successful online browsing. In contrast, a recent spate of speculative browsing technologies meet some browsing needs, but offer little theoretical understanding of how systems support browsing. The major contribution of this article is a new typology of library browsing behavior based on recent observations of browsing behavior in libraries. The secondary contribution is an understanding of the interface features that would support these types of information browsers in an online environment.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 4145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=4145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 4145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4145)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to present the results of the first two tasks of a user study looking into mental models of the bibliographic universe and especially their comparison to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) conceptual model, which has not yet been user tested. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employes a combination of techniques for eliciting mental models and consisted of three tasks, two of which, card sorting and concept mapping, are presented herein. Its participants were 30 individuals residing in the general area of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Findings - Cumulative results of concept mapping show a strong resemblance to FRBR. Card sorts did not produce conclusive results. In both tasks, participants paid special attention to the original expression, indicating that a special place for it should be considered. Research limitations/implications - The study was performed using a relatively small sample of participants living in a geographically limited space using relatively straight-forward examples. Practical implications - Some solid evidence is provided for adoption of FRBR as the conceptual basis for cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first widely published user study of FRBR, applying novel methodological approaches in the field of Library and Information Science.

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=4193,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4193, 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=4193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:09:26

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=2637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2637, 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=2637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2016 12:32:25

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25. 1.2016 18:46:22

0.0033953832 = product of:
  0.013581533 = sum of:
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22