Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021141099 = product of:
  0.042282198 = sum of:
    0.042282198 = sum of:
      0.018137332 = weight(_text_:6 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018137332 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044552263 = queryNorm
          0.1341326 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
      0.024144866 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024144866 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15601443 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044552263 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 642, 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=642)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) research has developed considerably since the 1950's to include consideration of more cognitive, interactive and iterative processes during the interaction between humans and IR or Web systems (Ingwersen, 1992, 1996). Interactive search sessions by humans with IR systems have been depicted as interactive IR models (Saracevic, 1997). Human-IR system interaction is also modeled as taking place within the context of broader human information behavior (HIB) processes (Spink et al., 2002). Research into the human or cognitive (user modeling) aspects of IR is a growing body of research on user interactivity, task performance and measures for observing user interactivity. The task context and situational characteristics of users' searches and evaluation have also been identified as key elements in a user's interaction with an IR system (Cool and Spink, 2002; Vakkari, 2003). Major theorized interactive IR models have been proposed relating to the single search episode, including Ingwersen's (1992,1996) Cognitive Model of IR Interaction, Belkin et al.'s (1995) Episodic Interaction Model, and Saracevic's (1996,1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In this chapter we examine Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction and extend the model within the framework of cognitive IR (CIR) to depict CIR as a multitasking process. This chapter provides a new direction for CIR research by conceptualizing IR with a multitasking context. The next section of the chapter defines the concept of multitasking in the cognitive sciences and Section 3 discusses the emerging understanding of multitasking information behavior. In Section 4, cognitive IR is depicted within a multitasking framework using Saracevic's (1996, 1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In Section 5, we link information searching and seeking models together, via Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction, but starting with a unitask model of HIB. We begin to model multitasking in cognitive IR in Section 6. In Sections 7 and 8, we increase the complexity of our developing multitasking model of cognitive IR by adding coordinating mechanisms, including feedback loops. Finally, in Section 9, we conclude the chapter and indicate future directions for further research.

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22

0.015870165 = product of:
  0.03174033 = sum of:
    0.03174033 = product of:
      0.06348066 = sum of:
        0.06348066 = weight(_text_:6 in 1774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06348066 = score(doc=1774,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.46946406 = fieldWeight in 1774, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.6, S.843-857

0.009618773 = product of:
  0.019237546 = sum of:
    0.019237546 = product of:
      0.038475093 = sum of:
        0.038475093 = weight(_text_:6 in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038475093 = score(doc=3877,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.2845382 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports from a study investigating the extent to which academic end users conduct multiple search sessions, over time woth OPAC or CD-ROM databases at different stages of their information seeking related to a current research project. Interviews were conducted using a questionnaire with 200 academic end users at Rutgers University Alexander Library, NJ and University of North Texas, to investigate the occurrence of multiple search sessions. Results show that at the time of the survey interview, 57% of end users had conducted multiple search sessions during their research project and 86% of end users conducted their 1st search session at the beginning stage of their information seeking process. 49% of end users had conducted between 1 and 6 search sessions and 8% more than 6 search sessions. 70% of multiple search sessionss end users had modified their search terms since their 1st search session. Discusses the implications of the findings for end user training, information retrieval systems design and further research

0.009068666 = product of:
  0.018137332 = sum of:
    0.018137332 = product of:
      0.036274664 = sum of:
        0.036274664 = weight(_text_:6 in 7441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036274664 = score(doc=7441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.2682652 = fieldWeight in 7441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

State of the art review of the mechanisms of feedback in information retrieval (IR) in terms of feedback concepts and models in cybernetics and social sciences. Critically evaluates feedback research based on the traditional IR models and comparing the different approaches to automatic relevance feedback techniques, and feedback research within the framework of interactive IR models. Calls for an extension of the concept of feedback beyond relevance feedback to interactive feedback. Cites specific examples of feedback models used within IR research and presents 6 challenges to future research

0.009054325 = product of:
  0.01810865 = sum of:
    0.01810865 = product of:
      0.0362173 = sum of:
        0.0362173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0362173 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15601443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

0.008015645 = product of:
  0.01603129 = sum of:
    0.01603129 = product of:
      0.03206258 = sum of:
        0.03206258 = weight(_text_:6 in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03206258 = score(doc=285,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.23711517 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Detecting query reformulations within a session by a Web searcher is an important area of research for designing more helpful searching systems and targeting content to particular users. Methods explored by other researchers include both qualitative (i.e., the use of human judges to manually analyze query patterns on usually small samples) and nondeterministic algorithms, typically using large amounts of training data to predict query modification during sessions. In this article, we explore three alternative methods for detection of session boundaries. All three methods are computationally straightforward and therefore easily implemented for detection of session changes. We examine 2,465,145 interactions from 534,507 users of Dogpile.com on May 6, 2005. We compare session analysis using (a) Internet Protocol address and cookie; (b) Internet Protocol address, cookie, and a temporal limit on intrasession interactions; and (c) Internet Protocol address, cookie, and query reformulation patterns. Overall, our analysis shows that defining sessions by query reformulation along with Internet Protocol address and cookie provides the best measure, resulting in an 82% increase in the count of sessions. Regardless of the method used, the mean session length was fewer than three queries, and the mean session duration was less than 30 min. Searchers most often modified their query by changing query terms (nearly 23% of all query modifications) rather than adding or deleting terms. Implications are that for measuring searching traffic, unique sessions may be a better indicator than the common metric of unique visitors. This research also sheds light on the more complex aspects of Web searching involving query modifications and may lead to advances in searching tools.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.862-871

0.007935083 = product of:
  0.015870165 = sum of:
    0.015870165 = product of:
      0.03174033 = sum of:
        0.03174033 = weight(_text_:6 in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03174033 = score(doc=7824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.23473203 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting 1993, New York, 4-6 May 1993. Ed.: M.E. Williams

0.007935083 = product of:
  0.015870165 = sum of:
    0.015870165 = product of:
      0.03174033 = sum of:
        0.03174033 = weight(_text_:6 in 6981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03174033 = score(doc=6981,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.23473203 = fieldWeight in 6981, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6981)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 32(1996) no.6, S.681-695

0.007935083 = product of:
  0.015870165 = sum of:
    0.015870165 = product of:
      0.03174033 = sum of:
        0.03174033 = weight(_text_:6 in 3265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03174033 = score(doc=3265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.23473203 = fieldWeight in 3265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 3.1999 18:32:28

0.0068014995 = product of:
  0.013602999 = sum of:
    0.013602999 = product of:
      0.027205998 = sum of:
        0.027205998 = weight(_text_:6 in 3454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027205998 = score(doc=3454,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.20119889 = fieldWeight in 3454, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3454)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.6, S.559-570

0.0056679165 = product of:
  0.011335833 = sum of:
    0.011335833 = product of:
      0.022671666 = sum of:
        0.022671666 = weight(_text_:6 in 4915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022671666 = score(doc=4915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.16766575 = fieldWeight in 4915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 2.2006 13:27:17

0.0056679165 = product of:
  0.011335833 = sum of:
    0.011335833 = product of:
      0.022671666 = sum of:
        0.022671666 = weight(_text_:6 in 270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022671666 = score(doc=270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.16766575 = fieldWeight in 270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metasearch engines are an intuitive method for improving the performance of Web search by increasing coverage, returning large numbers of results with a focus on relevance, and presenting alternative views of information needs. However, the use of metasearch engines in an operational environment is not well understood. In this study, we investigate the usage of Dogpile.com, a major Web metasearch engine, with the aim of discovering how Web searchers interact with metasearch engines. We report results examining 2,465,145 interactions from 534,507 users of Dogpile.com on May 6, 2005 and compare these results with findings from other Web searching studies. We collect data on geographical location of searchers, use of system feedback, content selection, sessions, queries, and term usage. Findings show that Dogpile.com searchers are mainly from the USA (84% of searchers), use about 3 terms per query (mean = 2.85), implement system feedback moderately (8.4% of users), and generally (56% of users) spend less than one minute interacting with the Web search engine. Overall, metasearchers seem to have higher degrees of interaction than searchers on non-metasearch engines, but their sessions are for a shorter period of time. These aspects of metasearching may be what define the differences from other forms of Web searching. We discuss the implications of our findings in relation to metasearch for Web searchers, search engines, and content providers.

0.0056679165 = product of:
  0.011335833 = sum of:
    0.011335833 = product of:
      0.022671666 = sum of:
        0.022671666 = weight(_text_:6 in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022671666 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.16766575 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Web has become a worldwide source of information and a mainstream business tool. It is changing the way people conduct the daily business of their lives. As these changes are occurring, we need to understand what Web searching trends are emerging within the various global regions. What are the regional differences and trends in Web searching, if any? What is the effectiveness of Web search engines as providers of information? As part of a body of research studying these questions, we have analyzed two data sets collected from queries by mainly European users submitted to AlltheWeb.com on 6 February 2001 and 28 May 2002. AlltheWeb.com is a major and highly rated European search engine. Each data set contains approximately a million queries submitted by over 200,000 users and spans a 24-h period. This longitudinal benchmark study shows that European Web searching is evolving in certain directions. There was some decline in query length, with extremely simple queries. European search topics are broadening, with a notable percentage decline in sexual and pornographic searching. The majority of Web searchers view fewer than five Web documents, spending only seconds on a Web document. Approximately 50% of the Web documents viewed by these European users were topically relevant. We discuss the implications for Web information systems and information content providers.

0.0028339582 = product of:
  0.0056679165 = sum of:
    0.0056679165 = product of:
      0.011335833 = sum of:
        0.011335833 = weight(_text_:6 in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011335833 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13521942 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044552263 = queryNorm
            0.083832875 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0350742 = idf(docFreq=5777, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; 6