Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

0.08784916 = product of:
  0.26354748 = sum of:
    0.26354748 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26354748 = score(doc=2660,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.9280771 = fieldWeight in 2660, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2660)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly important for health care professionals seeking to provide evidence based health care. In the past, systematic reviews have been difficult to identify among the mass of literature labelled 'reviews'. Reports results of a study to design search strategies based on a more objective approach to strategy construction. MEDLINE was chosen as the database and word frequencies in the titles, abstracts and subject keywords of a collection of systematic reviews of the effective health care interventions were analyzed to derive a highly sensitive search strategy. 'Sensitivity' was used in preference to the usual term 'recall' as one of the measures (in addition to the usual 'precision'). The proposed strategy was found to offer 98% sensitivity in retrieving systematic reviews, while retaining a low but acceptable level of precision (20%). Reports results using other strategies with other levels of sensitivity and precision. Concludes that it is possible to use frequency analysis to generate highly sensitive strategies when retrieving systematic reviews

0.07172854 = product of:
  0.21518563 = sum of:
    0.21518563 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21518563 = score(doc=3359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.7577718 = fieldWeight in 3359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3359)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.04781903 = product of:
  0.14345708 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=2791,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 2791, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2791)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Offers 10 tips for finding information on the Internet. Define the area and level of expertise. Require end users to complete a request form defining the query. Categorize the Internat in lay terms for casual users. Establich a realistic time for retrieving results. Adopt a disciplined, systematic approach to the search. Understand the operating platform and the major tools available. Maintain a file of important services and addresses and users. Develop bookmarks and home pages. Learn shortcuts. Participate in the Internet Hunt (a monthly series of questions that allows searchers to practice and perfect search skills)

0.042266455 = product of:
  0.12679936 = sum of:
    0.12679936 = weight(_text_:systematic in 4114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12679936 = score(doc=4114,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44652134 = fieldWeight in 4114, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4114)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Folder navigation is the main way that personal computer users retrieve their own files. People dedicate considerable time to creating systematic structures to facilitate such retrieval. Despite the prevalence of both manual organization and navigation, there is very little systematic data about how people actually carry out navigation, or about the relation between organization structure and retrieval parameters. The aims of our research were therefore to study users' folder structure, personal file navigation, and the relations between them. We asked 296 participants to retrieve 1,131 of their active files and analyzed each of the 5,035 navigation steps in these retrievals. Folder structures were found to be shallow (files were retrieved from mean depth of 2.86 folders), with small folders (a mean of 11.82 files per folder) containing many subfolders (M=10.64). Navigation was largely successful and efficient with participants successfully accessing 94% of their files and taking 14.76 seconds to do this on average. Retrieval time and success depended on folder size and depth. We therefore found the users' decision to avoid both deep structure and large folders to be adaptive. Finally, we used a predictive model to formulate the effect of folder depth and folder size on retrieval time, and suggested an optimization point in this trade-off.

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 7956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=7956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 7956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7956)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Past trends in reference instruction, query analysis and proloferation of reference tools classed by primary functions into a general typology anticipated the use of paradigm logic, templates, search strategies, and systematic searching in applied Artificial Intelligence research and design of expert system, especially referral and decision-support systems. The approach, methodologies, and technique employed in basic reference and subject-area reference instruction in four graduate library schools, developed first at the University of Maryland after 1976, are reviewed. The advantages and limitations of the latter are discussed to suggest the interplay of personal service, manual tools, and computerized systems for holistic reference programs. Librarians' transition to the automated tools using AI methods might be improved by introducing paradigms, typologies, strategies, and a systems approach in reference instruction for professionals and more generally in bibliographic instruction

0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=3476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 3476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3476)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is the second of two articles published in this issue of JASIST reporting the results of a study investigating relationships between Web search strategies and a range of human individual differences. In this article we provide a combined analysis of the factor analyses previously presented separately in relation to each of three groups of human individual difference (study approaches, cognitive and demographic features, and perceptions of and approaches to Internet-based information seeking). It also introduces two series of regression analyses conducted an data spanning all three individual difference groups. The results are discussed in terms of the extent to which they satisfy the original aim of this exploratory research, namely to identify any relationships between search strategy and individual difference variables for which there is a prima facie case for more focused systematic study. It is argued that a number of such relationships do exist. The results of the project are summarized and suggestions are made for further research.

0.029886894 = product of:
  0.08966068 = sum of:
    0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08966068 = score(doc=528,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 528, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=528)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Despite being necessary, keeping up to date with new information and trends remains challenging in many fields due to information overload, time constraints, and insufficient evaluation skills. Collaboration, or sharing the effort among group members, may be a solution, but more knowledge is needed. To guide future research on the potential role of collaboration in keeping up to date, we conducted a systematic literature review with a framework synthesis aimed to adapt the conceptual framework for environmental scanning to a collaborative context. Our specific objectives were to identify the factors and outcomes of collaborative information seeking (CIS) and use them to propose an adapted conceptual framework. Fifty-one empirical studies were included and synthesized using a hybrid thematic synthesis. The adapted framework includes seven types of influencing factors and five types of outcomes. Our review contributes to the theoretical expansion of knowledge on CIS in general and provides a conceptual framework to study collaboration in keeping up to date. Overall, our findings will be useful to researchers, practitioners, team leaders, and system designers implementing and evaluating collaborative information projects.

0.019700034 = product of:
  0.0591001 = sum of:
    0.0591001 = sum of:
      0.032173738 = weight(_text_:indexing in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032173738 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.16916946 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.026926363 = weight(_text_:22 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026926363 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Previous empirical studies of searcher behaviour have drawn attention to a wide variety of factors that affect performance; for instance, the display of retrieved results can alter search strategies (Allen 1991, 1994), the information need type influences search behaviour, (Elkerton et al 1984, Marchionini 1995); while the task complexity, reflected in the information need can affect user's search behaviour (Large et al 1994). Furthermore, information source selection (Bassilli 1977), and the user's model of the system and domain impact on the search process (Michel 1994); while motivation (Solomon 1993, Jacobsen et al 1992) and the importance of the information need (Wendt 1969) also influence search duration and the effort a user will employ. Rouse and Rouse (1984) in a review of empirical studies, summarise a wide variety of variables that can effect searching behaviour, including payoff, costs of searching, resource available, amount of information sought, characteristics of the data and conflicts between documents. It appears that user behaviour is inconsistent in the search strategies adopted even for the same search need and system (Davidson 1977, Iivonen 1995). Theories of searcher behaviour have been proposed that provide explanations of aspects of end-user behaviour, such as the evolution of the user's information need and the problems of articulating a query, [Bates (1979, 1989), Markey and Atherton 1978], effective search strategies in browsing and goal directed searches [Marchionini 1995, Belkin (1987, 1993)], the linguistic problem of matching search terms with indexing terms or content of target documents through an expert intermediary (Ingwersen 1982) or cognitive aspects of IR (Kulthau 1984, Ingwersen 1996).

Date

22. 3.2002 9:54:13

0.01795091 = product of:
  0.053852726 = sum of:
    0.053852726 = product of:
      0.10770545 = sum of:
        0.10770545 = weight(_text_:22 in 1448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10770545 = score(doc=1448,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1448, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2005 19:53:09

0.015707046 = product of:
  0.047121134 = sum of:
    0.047121134 = product of:
      0.09424227 = sum of:
        0.09424227 = weight(_text_:22 in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09424227 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2005 19:52:29

0.015707046 = product of:
  0.047121134 = sum of:
    0.047121134 = product of:
      0.09424227 = sum of:
        0.09424227 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09424227 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.011219318 = product of:
  0.033657953 = sum of:
    0.033657953 = product of:
      0.06731591 = sum of:
        0.06731591 = weight(_text_:22 in 5835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06731591 = score(doc=5835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5835, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:44

0.009479279 = product of:
  0.028437834 = sum of:
    0.028437834 = product of:
      0.05687567 = sum of:
        0.05687567 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05687567 = score(doc=1300,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 1300, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper describes a new OPAC system called The Book House and discusses its relevance as a solution to current OPAC developments. The Book House is an interactive, multimedia, online public access catalogue system designed to support casual and/or novice end-users in information retrieval. It runs on a Macintosh and is available on CD-ROM and disks in English and Danish (it can be purchased from Risø for $100). It comprises an interface and module for classifying and indexing fact and fiction books in the database called Book House Write. It uses icons, text and animation in the display interface in order to enhance the utility of the system for the general public. Both words and pictures can be used for searching, which makes the system suitable for all age groups. It plays on users' previous experiencees with computer games to support learning by doing something in an enjoyable way. A prerequisite for the design of The Book House was a new approach to cognitive analysis of retrieval in libraries. Based on the success of this approach, it is claimed that OPAC systems will only be really useful and widespread (1) when their domain and task characteristics allow supplementary information to be added to existing descriptions of book content in online card catalogues in order to match end-users' intentions and needs, and (2) when the user interface and routes to the databases are configured as an integrated and uniform set of displays which match the search strategies of users, as well as their mental capabilities and limitations

0.0080434345 = product of:
  0.024130303 = sum of:
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Proposes a model of the search term selection process based on an empirical study of professional searchers during the pre-online stage of the search process. The model chraracterises the selection of search terms as the navigation of different discourses. 6 discourses emerged as sources of search terms: controlled vocabularies, documents and the domain, the practice of indexing, clients' search request, databases and the searchers' own search experience. Searchers navigate the discourses dynamically and have preferences for certain discourses. Emphasises the multiplicity and complexity of sources of search terms, the dynamic nature of the search term selection process and the complex analysis and synthesis of differences and similarities among sources of search terms. Searchers may need to understand fundamental aspects of multiple discourses in order to select search terms

0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 2404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=2404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2404, 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=2404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

25.12.1998 19:22:31

0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 281, 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=281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2002 9:53:10

0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 3450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=3450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3450, 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=3450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 4.2005 14:52:22

0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 3612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=3612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3612, 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=3612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

2. 7.2005 12:22:50

0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 5047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=5047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5047, 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=5047)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 6.2006 11:22:23

0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=331,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 331, 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=331)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27. 5.2007 13:55:22