Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034272335 = product of:
  0.17136167 = sum of:
    0.17136167 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17136167 = score(doc=3546,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.7220435 = fieldWeight in 3546, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3546)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare (1) the semantic structures in lay persons' questions addressed to ask-an-expert service in the fields of health, nutrition and social services, and (2) to which extent lay persons' vocabularies are covered by a general thesaurus and a specific thesaurus in each of these fields. As representation of information needs 50 questions were selected concerning both health and nutrition, and 163 concerning social services. The concepts and their expressions in the questions were identified, and their semantic relations were observed and classified into equivalence, hierarchical and associative relations. The semantic structure of questions varied somewhat between the fields observed. Lay persons' expressions were covered most extensively in health, and least extensively in social services. Specific thesaurus covered more extensively expressions in health (65%) than general thesaurus (42%), whereas in nutrition there was no difference (33% vs. 32%), and in social services general thesaurus (21%) covered expressions somewhat better compared to specific thesaurus (15%). In terms of matching both specific and general thesaurus would provide searchers with reasonable support in term selection for query construction in health, but with limited assistance in nutrition and social services.

0.029680712 = product of:
  0.14840356 = sum of:
    0.14840356 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14840356 = score(doc=4417,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.62530804 = fieldWeight in 4417, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4417)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study explores how experts and novices in pedagogics expanded queries supported by the ERIC thesaurus, and how this was connected to the search effectiveness in an easy and a difficult search task. The expert group consisted of 15 undergraduates in pedagogy and the novice group of 15 students with no previous studies in this field. Their search logs were recorded and a pre- and post-search interview was conducted. The results show that the number and type of terms selected from the thesaurus for expansion by experts improved search effectiveness, whereas there were no connections between the use of thesaurus and improvement of effectiveness among novices. The effectiveness of expansions varied between the facets of the queries. Thus, a vital condition for benefiting from a thesaurus in query expansion to improve search results is sufficient familiarity with the search topic. The results suggest also that it is not in the first place the number of terms used in expansion, but their type and quality that are crucial for search success.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.02518492 = product of:
  0.1259246 = sum of:
    0.1259246 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1259246 = score(doc=1732,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5305915 = fieldWeight in 1732, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1732)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper sets out to examine the degree to which General Finnish Thesaurus (GFT) and FinMeSH cover various semantic expressions of medical concepts in patients' questions and physicians' answers concerning cardiovascular diseases. The former represents lay persons' information needs. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 50 question-answer pairs were collected in a medical web site. Concepts and their expressions (terms) with their semantic relations were identified in questions and answers. Findings - FinMeSH covered 65 per cent and GFT 41 per cent of all medical terms in texts. The expressions of patients and physicians matched better with FinMeSH than GFT regardless of the type of expression. The difference in favour of FinMeSH was typically about 25 per cent-units. Originality/value - The low fit with users' vocabularies makes GFT a poor tool for supporting searching, whereas the relatively high fit of FinMeSH suggests that it is a reasonable tool in assisting searching. Conclusions concerning the bridging of these two thesauri are discussed.

Object

General Finnish Thesaurus

0.009840497 = product of:
  0.049202483 = sum of:
    0.049202483 = weight(_text_:22 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049202483 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article focuses an analysing students' information needs in terms of conceptual understanding of the topic they propose to study and its consequences for the search process and outcome. The research subjects were 22 undergraduates of psychology attending a seminar for preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. They were asked to make searches in the PsycINFO database for their task in the beginning and end of the seminar. A pre- and postsearch interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded, as were the transaction logs. The results show that during the preparation of research proposals different features of the students' conceptual structure were connected to the search success. Students' ability to cover their conceptual construct by query terms was the major feature affecting search success during the whole process. In the beginning also the number of concepts and the proportion of subconcepts in the construct contributed indirectly via search tactics to retrieving partly useful references. Students' ability to extract new query terms from retrieved items improved search results.

Date

19. 6.2003 17:22:33

0.006958282 = product of:
  0.03479141 = sum of:
    0.03479141 = weight(_text_:22 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03479141 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1073, 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=1073)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The study analyses how students' growing understanding of the topic and search experience were related to their choice of search tactics and terms while preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. In addition to that, the findings of the study are used to test Vakkari's (2001) theory of task-based IR. The research subjects were 22 students of psychology attending a seminar for preparing the proposal. They made a search for their task in PsychINFO database at the beginning and end of the seminar. Data were collected in several ways. A pre- and post-search interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded as were the transaction logs. The results show that search experience was slightly related to the change of facets. Although the students' vocabulary of the topic grew generating an increased use of specific terms between the sessions, their use of search tactics and operators remained fairly constant. There was no correlation between the terms and tactics used and the total number of useful references found. By comparing these results with the findings of relevant earlier studies the conclusion was drawn that domain knowledge has an impact on searching assuming that users have a sufficient command of the system used. This implies that the tested theory of task-based IR is valid on condition that the searchers are experienced. It is suggested that the theory should be enriched by including search experience in its scope.

0.006958282 = product of:
  0.03479141 = sum of:
    0.03479141 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03479141 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.006958282 = product of:
  0.03479141 = sum of:
    0.03479141 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03479141 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06