Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08730605 = product of:
  0.116408065 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
    0.06662838 = sum of:
      0.039465316 = weight(_text_:project in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039465316 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027163066 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1628, 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=1628)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to propose the Collaborative Search System that attempts to achieve collaboration by implicitly identifying and reflecting search behaviour of collaborators in an academic network that is automatically and dynamically formed. By using the constructed Collaborative Hit Matrix (CHM), results are obtained that are based on the search behaviour and earned preferences of specialist communities of researchers, which are relevant to the user's need and reduce the time spent on bad links. Design/methodology/approach - By using the Digital Bibliography Library Project (DBLP), the research communities are formed implicitly and dynamically based on the users' research presence in the search environment and in the publication scenario, which is also used to assign users' roles and establish links between the users. The CHM, to store the hit count and hit list of page results for queries, is also constructed and updated after every search session to enhance the collaborative search among the researchers. Findings - The implicit researchers community formation, the assignment and dynamic updating of roles of the researchers based on research, search presence and search behaviour on the web as well as the usage of these roles during Collaborative Web Search have highly improved the relevancy of results. The CHM that holds the collaborative responses provided by the researchers on the search query results to support searching distinguishes this system from others. Thus the proposed system considerably improves the relevancy and reduces the time spent on bad links, thus improving recall and precision. Originality/value - The research findings illustrate the better performance of the system, by connecting researchers working in the same field and allowing them to help each other in a web search environment.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.030029371 = product of:
  0.060058743 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=5842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 5842, 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=5842)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 5842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=5842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5842, 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=5842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose A new approach to investigate serendipitous knowledge discovery (SKD) of health information is developed and tested to evaluate the information flow-serendipitous knowledge discovery (IF-SKD) model. The purpose of this paper is to determine the degree to which IF-SKD reflects physicians' information behaviour in a clinical setting and explore how the information system, Spark, designed to support physicians' SKD, meets its goals. Design/methodology/approach The proposed pre-experimental study design employs an adapted version of the McCay-Peet's (2013) and McCay-Peet et al.'s (2015) serendipitous digital environment (SDE) questionnaire research tool to address the complexity associated with defining the way in which SKD is understood and applied in system design. To test the IF-SKD model, the new data analysis approach combining confirmatory factor analysis, data imputation and Monte Carlo simulations was developed. Findings The piloting of the proposed novel analysis approach demonstrated that small sample information behaviour survey data can be meaningfully examined using a confirmatory factor analysis technique. Research limitations/implications This method allows to improve the reliability in measuring SKD and the generalisability of findings. Originality/value This paper makes an original contribution to developing and refining methods and tools of research into information-system-supported serendipitous discovery of information by health providers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.021540914 = product of:
  0.086163655 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 1525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=1525,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 1525, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1525)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Serendipity occurs when unexpected circumstances and an "aha" moment of insight result in a valuable, unanticipated outcome. Designing digital information environments to support serendipity can not only provide users with new knowledge, but also propel them in directions they might not otherwise have traveled in-surprising and delighting them along the way. As serendipity involves unexpected circumstances it cannot be directly controlled, but it can be potentially influenced. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous work has focused on providing a rich empirical understanding of how it might be influenced. We interviewed 14 creative professionals to identify their self-reported strategies aimed at increasing the likelihood of serendipity. These strategies form a framework for examining ways existing digital environments support serendipity and for considering how future environments can create opportunities for it. This is a new way of thinking about how to design for serendipity; by supporting the strategies found to increase its likelihood rather than attempting to support serendipity as a discrete phenomenon, digital environments not only have the potential to help users experience serendipity but also encourage them to adopt the strategies necessary to experience it more often.

0.02082137 = product of:
  0.08328548 = sum of:
    0.08328548 = sum of:
      0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049331643 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033953834 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3340, 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=3340)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Keeping up to date with research developments is a central activity of academic researchers, but researchers face difficulties in managing the rapid growth of available scientific information. This study examined how researchers stay up to date, using the information journey model as a framework for analysis and investigating which dimensions influence information behaviors. We designed a 2-round study involving semistructured interviews and prototype testing with 61 researchers with 3 levels of seniority (PhD student to professor). Data were analyzed following a semistructured qualitative approach. Five key dimensions that influence information behaviors were identified: level of seniority, information sources, state of the project, level of familiarity, and how well defined the relevant community is. These dimensions are interrelated and their values determine the flow of the information journey. Across all levels of professional expertise, researchers used similar hard (formal) sources to access content, while soft (interpersonal) sources were used to filter information. An important "pain point" that future information tools should address is helping researchers filter information at the point of need.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.22-35

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 2677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=2677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2677, 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=2677)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Question Answering (QA) task aims to provide precise and quick answers to user questions from a collection of documents or a database. This kind of IR system is sorely needed with the dramatic growth of digital information. In this paper, we address the problem of QA in the medical domain where several specific conditions are met. We propose a semantic approach to QA based on (i) Natural Language Processing techniques, which allow a deep analysis of medical questions and documents and (ii) semantic Web technologies at both representation and interrogation levels. We present our Semantic Question-Answering System, called MEANS and our proposed method for "Answer Search" based on semantic search and query relaxation. We evaluate the overall system performance on real questions and answers extracted from MEDLINE articles. Our experiments show promising results and suggest that a query-relaxation strategy can further improve the overall performance.

0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 5047, 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=5047)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We investigated the searching behaviors of twenty-four children in grades 6, 7, and 8 (ages 11-13) in finding information on three types of search tasks in Google. Children conducted 72 search sessions and issued 150 queries. Children's phrase- and question-like queries combined were much more prevalent than keyword queries (70% vs. 30%, respectively). Fifty two percent of the queries were reformulations (33 sessions). We classified children's query reformulation types into five classes based on the taxonomy by Liu et al. (2010). We found that most query reformulations were by Substitution and Specialization, and that children hardly repeated queries. We categorized children's queries by task facets and examined the way they expressed these facets in their query formulations and reformulations. Oldest children tended to target the general topic of search tasks in their queries most frequently, whereas younger children expressed one of the two facets more often. We assessed children's achieved task outcomes using the search task outcomes measure we developed. Children were mostly more successful on the fact-finding and fully self-generated task and partially successful on the research-oriented task. Query type, reformulation type, achieved task outcomes, and expressing task facets varied by task type and grade level. There was no significant effect of query length in words or of the number of queries issued on search task outcomes. The study findings have implications for human intervention, digital literacy, search task literacy, as well as for system intervention to support children's query formulation and reformulation during interaction with Google.

0.008289068 = product of:
  0.033156272 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 4060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=4060,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 4060, 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=4060)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the information-seeking behavior of science and social science research scholars, including service effectiveness, satisfaction level on different type of sources and various methods adopted by the scholars for keeping up to date. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using a questionnaire survey of 200, randomly selected, PhD students of science and social science departments of four universities in Kerala, India. Findings - Although similarities exist between social science and science PhD students with regard to information-seeking behavior, there are significant differences as well. There is a significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of print journals and database collection which are very relevant to the research purposes. There is no significant difference between science and social science scholars on the perception of the adequacy of e-journals, the most used source for keeping up to date. The study proved that scholars of both the fields are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the library in keeping them up to date with latest developments. Originality/value - The study is based on actual situation and the result can be used for library service redesign for different types of users.

Source

Library review. 59(2010) no.7, S.522-531

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 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=2726,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 2726, 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=2726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This research investigates how people's perceptions of information retrieval (IR) systems, their perceptions of search tasks, and their perceptions of self-efficacy influence the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) they put into using two different IR systems: a Web search engine and a library system. It also explores the impact of mental effort on an end user's search experience. To assess AIME in online searching, two experiments were conducted using these methods: Experiment 1 relied on self-reports and Experiment 2 employed the dual-task technique. In both experiments, data were collected through search transaction logs, a pre-search background questionnaire, a post-search questionnaire and an interview. Important findings are these: (1) subjects invested greater mental effort searching a library system than searching the Web; (2) subjects put little effort into Web searching because of their high sense of self-efficacy in their searching ability and their perception of the easiness of the Web; (3) subjects did not recognize that putting mental effort into searching was something needed to improve the search results; and (4) data collected from multiple sources proved to be effective for assessing mental effort in online searching.

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3600, 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=3600)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article reports on a longitudinal analysis of query logs of a web-based case library system during an 8-year period (from 2005 to 2012). The analysis studies 3 different information-seeking approaches: keyword searching, browsing, and case-based reasoning (CBR) searching provided by the system by examining the query logs that stretch over 8 years. The longitudinal dimension of this study offers unique possibilities to see how users used the 3 different approaches over time. Various user information-seeking patterns and trends are identified through the query usage pattern analysis and session analysis. The study identified different user groups and found that a majority of the users tend to stick to their favorite information-seeking approach to meet their immediate information needs and do not seem to care whether alternative search options will offer greater benefits. The study also found that return users used CBR searching much more frequently than 1-time users and tend to use more query terms to look for information than 1-time users.

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 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

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.0042442293 = product of:
  0.016976917 = sum of:
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5493, 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=5493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0025465374 = product of:
  0.01018615 = sum of:
    0.01018615 = product of:
      0.0203723 = sum of:
        0.0203723 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0203723 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22