Search (4 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

0.009338023 = 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

0.007983115 = product of:
  0.023949342 = sum of:
    0.023949342 = product of:
      0.047898684 = sum of:
        0.047898684 = weight(_text_:22 in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047898684 = score(doc=4720,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 4720, 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=4720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article characterises the questioning behaviour in reference interviews preceding delegated online searches of bibliographic databases and relates it to questioning behaviour in other types of interviews/settings. With one exception, the unit of analysis is the question (N=610), not the interview. The author uses A.C. Graesser's typology of questions to analyse type of question and M.D. White's typology of information categories to determine the question's content objective; this is the first application of Graesser's typology to interview questions in any setting. Graesser's categories allow for a more subtle understanding of the kind of information need underlying a question. Comparisons are made between questions asked by the information specialist and those asked by the client. Findings show that the information specialist dominates the interview, about half the questions were verification questions and about 22% were judgemental questions or requests; all but four types of questions from Graesser's categories appeared in the interviews, but no new question types were discovered. Clients often phrase questions as requests. In content, both clients and information specialists focus on the subject and service requested, but the clients ask also about search strategy and output features. Both parties ask predominantly short-answer questions. Results are related to interface design for retrieval systems.

Date

2.12.2005 14:48:22