Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08283156 = product of:
  0.12424734 = sum of:
    0.08502764 = weight(_text_:citation in 7352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502764 = score(doc=7352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.3626685 = fieldWeight in 7352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7352)
    0.039219696 = product of:
      0.07843939 = sum of:
        0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 7352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07843939 = score(doc=7352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 7352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Identifies aspects of citing behaviour by directly questioning researchers about decisions to cite or not to cite specific docuements. Finds the existence of meta-level concerns which may indictae documentation styles which influence a decision to cite a document in addition to situation factors related to its actual use during research. Reports the preliminary results of the citing decisions in an empirical, longitudinal study of document use by academic economists and gradutae students during several phases of their research projects

0.021129537 = product of:
  0.06338861 = sum of:
    0.06338861 = product of:
      0.12677722 = sum of:
        0.12677722 = weight(_text_:reports in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12677722 = score(doc=43,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.5629941 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports a qualitative study of the citing motivations of 12 agricultural economists (faculty and doctoral students), identifying several factors they considered in making citing decisions. Reports citing behaviour derived from a larger empirical, longitudinal study tracing document use during research projects and thus includes behaviour related to decisions both to cite and not to cite. An important finding is the existence of metalevel concerns that influence a decision to cite a document, in addition to situational factors related to its actual use during research

0.014940838 = product of:
  0.044822514 = sum of:
    0.044822514 = product of:
      0.08964503 = sum of:
        0.08964503 = weight(_text_:reports in 7960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08964503 = score(doc=7960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.39809695 = fieldWeight in 7960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on part of a study of real users' behaviour in selecting documents from a list of citations resulting from a search of an information retrieval system. Document selection involves value judgements and decision making. Understanding how users evaluate documents and make decisions provides a basis for designing intelligent information retrieval system that can do a better job of predicting usefulness

0.014940838 = product of:
  0.044822514 = sum of:
    0.044822514 = product of:
      0.08964503 = sum of:
        0.08964503 = weight(_text_:reports in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08964503 = score(doc=320,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.39809695 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on part of the results of a longitudinal study of information seeking behaviour and document selection and use by 15 faculty and graduate students, in the Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, Maryland University, undertaking a research project. This project is a follow up to a similar project undertaken in 1992 and the 15 participants in this study were among the 25 engaged in the 1992 study

0.013205959 = product of:
  0.039617877 = sum of:
    0.039617877 = product of:
      0.079235755 = sum of:
        0.079235755 = weight(_text_:reports in 443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079235755 = score(doc=443,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.3518713 = fieldWeight in 443, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article proposes a model of document selection by real users of a bibliographic retrieval system. It reports on Part 1 of a longitudinal study of decision making on document use by academics during a actual research project. (Part 2 followed up the same users on how the selected documents were actually used in subsequent stages). The participants are 25 self-selected faculty and graduate students in Agricultural Economics. After a reference interview, the researcher conducted a search of DIALOG databases and prepared a printout. The users selected documents from this printout, They were asked to read and think aloud while selecting documents. There verbal reports were recorded and analyzed from a utiliy-theoretic perspective. The following model of the decision-making in the selection process emerged: document information lemenets (DIEs) in document records provide the information for judging the documents on 11 criteria (including topicality, orientation, quality, novelty, and authority); the criteria judgments are comninded in an assessment of document value along 5 dimensions (Epistemic, functional, conditional, social, and emotional values), leading to the use decision. This model accounts for the use of personal knowledge and decision strategies applied in the selection process. The model has implications for the design of an intelligent document selection assistant

0.013205959 = product of:
  0.039617877 = sum of:
    0.039617877 = product of:
      0.079235755 = sum of:
        0.079235755 = weight(_text_:reports in 4075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079235755 = score(doc=4075,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.3518713 = fieldWeight in 4075, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is Part II of an experimental study investigating students' perceptions of research and research paper anxiety. The study integrates quantitative and qualitative designs to collect complimentary data. The participants were students in four sections of an upper division undergraduate course on technical and professional writing during the fall of 1999. A survey instrument used the Critical Incident Technique to solicit writings in students' own words about a memorable past research and writing experience at the beginning of the semester and the current research and writing at the end of the semester. The quantitative part of the survey measured students' perceptions about research using a questionnaire with five-point Likert scale, and students' anxiety levels using a standard state anxiety test (STAI Y-1). The first article, Part 1, provides a detailed description of the experimental design and reports on quantitative results. This article reports on content analysis of students' writings about their experiences of the two research projects. Analysis of the data confirmed Kuhlthau's Information Search Process (ISP) model and revealed additional affective and cognitive aspects related to research and writing.

0.009338023 = product of:
  0.02801407 = sum of:
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=2940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on the follow-up study of a two-part project designed to study the decision-making process underlying how academic researchers select documents retrieved from online databases, consult or read, and cite documents during a research project. The participants are 15 of the the 25 agricultural economics users who participated in the original study of document-selection conducted in 1992. They were interviewed about subsequent decisions on document considered relevant and selected in 1992, as well as documents cited in their written products but not in the original searches. Of particular interest in this article are the decision criteria and rules they apply to documents as they progress through the project. The first study in 1992 emphasized the selection processes and resulted in a document selection model; the 1995 study concentrates on the reading and citing decisions. The model derived from this project shows document use as a decision-making process with decisions occuring at 3 points or stages during a research project: selecting, reading, and citing. It is an expansion pf the document selection model developed in the 1992 study, ientifies more criteria, and clarifies the criteria and rules that are in use at each stage. The follow-up study not only found that all but one of the criteria identified in selection re-occur in connection with reading and citing decisions, but also identified 14 new criteria. It also found that decision rules applied in selection descisions are applied throughout the project