Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.048083793 = product of:
  0.14425138 = sum of:
    0.14425138 = weight(_text_:query in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14425138 = score(doc=197,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.6289012 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors report the findings of a study that analyzes and compares the query logs of PsycINFO for psychology and the two history databases of ABC-Clio: Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life to establish the sociological nature of information need, searching, and seeking in history versus psychology. Two problems are addressed: (a) What level of query log analysis - by individual query terms, by co-occurrence of word pairs, or by multiword terms (MWTs) - best serves as data for categorizing the queries to these two subject-bound databases; and (b) how can the differences in the nature of the queries to history versus psychology databases aid in our understanding of user search behavior and the information needs of their respective users. The authors conclude that MWTs provide the most effective snapshot of user searching behavior for query categorization. The MWTs to ABC-Clio indicate specific instances of historical events, people, and regions, whereas the MWTs to PsycINFO indicate concepts roughly equivalent to descriptors used by PsycINFO's own classification scheme. The average length of queries is 3.16 terms for PsycINFO and 3.42 for ABC-Clio, which breaks from findings for other reference and scholarly search engine studies, bringing query length closer in line to findings for general Web search engines like Excite.

0.048083793 = product of:
  0.14425138 = sum of:
    0.14425138 = weight(_text_:query in 460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14425138 = score(doc=460,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.6289012 = fieldWeight in 460, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=460)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

When domain novices are in C.C. Kuhlthau's (1993) Stage 3, the exploration stage of researching an assignment, they often do not know their information need; this causes them to go back to Stage 2, the topic-selection stage, when they are selecting keywords to formulate their query to an Information Retrieval (IR) system. Our hypothesis is that instead of going backward, they should be going forward toward a goal state-the performance of the task for which they are seeking the information. If they can somehow construct their goal state into a query, this forward-looking query better operationalizes their information need than does a topic-based query. For domain novice undergraduates seeking information for a course essay, we define their task as selecting a high-impact essay structure which will put the students' learning on display for the course instructor who will evaluate the essay. We report a study of first-year history undergraduate students which tested the use and effectiveness of "essay type" as a task-focused query-formulation device. We randomly assigned 78 history undergraduates to an intervention group and a control group. The dependent variable was essay quality, based on (a) an evaluation of the student's essay by a research team member, and (b) the marks given to the student's essay by the course instructor. We found that conscious or formal consideration of essay type is inconclusive as a basis of a task-focused query-formulation device for IR.

0.027761191 = product of:
  0.08328357 = sum of:
    0.08328357 = weight(_text_:query in 4814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08328357 = score(doc=4814,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.3630963 = fieldWeight in 4814, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4814)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors present a study of the real-life information needs of 59 McGill University undergraduates researching essay topics for either a history or psychology course, interviewed just after they had selected their essay topic. The interview's purpose was to transform the undergraduate's query from general topic terms, based an vague conceptions of their essay topic, to an information need-based query. To chart the transformation, the authors investigate N. J. Belkin, R. N. Oddy, and H. M. Brooks' Anomalous States of Knowledge (ASK) hypothesis (1982a, 1982b), which links the user's ASK to a relevant document set via a common code based an structural facets. In the present study an interoperable structural code based an eight essay styles is created, then notions of structural facets compatible with a highimpact essay structure are presented. The important findings of the study are: (a) the undergraduates' topic statements and terms derived from it do not constitute an effective information need statement because for most of the subjects in the study the topic terms conformed to a low-impact essay style; (b) essay style is an effective interoperable structural code for charting the evolution of the undergraduate's knowledge state from ASK to partial resolution of the ASK in an information need statement.

0.027761191 = product of:
  0.08328357 = sum of:
    0.08328357 = weight(_text_:query in 4474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08328357 = score(doc=4474,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.3630963 = fieldWeight in 4474, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4474)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article proposes a theory of information need for information retrieval (IR). Information need traditionally denotes the start state for someone seeking information, which includes information search using an IR system. There are two perspectives on information need. The dominant, computer science perspective is that the user needs to find an answer to a well-defined question which is easy for the user to formulate into a query to the system. Ironically, information science's best known model of information need (Taylor, 1968) deems it to be a "black box"-unknowable and nonspecifiable by the user in a query to the information system. Information science has instead devoted itself to studying eight adjacent or surrogate concepts (information seeking, search and use; problem, problematic situation and task; sense making and evolutionary adaptation/information foraging). Based on an analysis of these eight adjacent/surrogate concepts, we create six testable propositions for a theory of information need. The central assumption of the theory is that while computer science sees IR as an information- or answer-finding system, focused on the user finding an answer, an information science or user-oriented theory of information need envisages a knowledge formulation/acquisition system.

0.019630127 = product of:
  0.05889038 = sum of:
    0.05889038 = weight(_text_:query in 4585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05889038 = score(doc=4585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.25674784 = fieldWeight in 4585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4585)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

With new interactive technology, we can increase user satisfaction by designing information retrieval systems that inform the user while the user is on-line interacting with the system. The purpose of this article is to model the information processing operations of a generic user who has just received an information message from the system and is stimulated by the message into grasping at a higher understanding of his or her information task or problem. The model consists of 3 levels, each of which forms a separate subsystem. In the Perseption subsystem, the user perceives the system message in a visual sense; in the Comprehension subsystem, the user must comprehend the system message; and in the Application subsystem, the user must (a) interpret the system message in terms of the user's task at hand, and (b) create and send a new message back to the system to complete the interaction. Because of the information process stimulated by the interaction, the user's new message forms a query to the system that more accurately represents the user's information need than would have been the case if the interaction had not taken place. This article proposes a device to enable clarification of the user's task, and thus his/her information need at the Application subsystem level of the model

0.01417559 = product of:
  0.04252677 = sum of:
    0.04252677 = product of:
      0.08505354 = sum of:
        0.08505354 = weight(_text_:page in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505354 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.30855376 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study reported here tested the efficacy of an information retrieval system output summary and visualization scheme for undergraduates taking a Vietnam War history who were in Kuhlthau's Stage 3 of researching a history essay. The visualization scheme consisted of (a) the undergraduate's own visualization of his or her essay topic, drawn by the student an the bottom half of a sheet of paper, and (b) a visualization of the information space (determined by index term counting) an the tophalf of the same page. To test the visualization scheme, students enrolled in a Vietnam War history course were randomly assigned to either the visualization scheme group, who received a high recall search output, or the nonvisualization group, who received a high precision search output. The dependent variable was the mark awarded the essay by the course instructor. There was no significant difference between the mean marks for the two groups. We were pleasantly surprised with this result given the bad reputation of high recall as a practical search strategy. We hypothesize that a more proactive visualization system is needed that takes the student through the process of using the visualization scheme, including steps that induce student cognition about task-subject objectives.

0.0066865305 = product of:
  0.020059591 = sum of:
    0.020059591 = product of:
      0.040119182 = sum of:
        0.040119182 = weight(_text_:22 in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040119182 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3675, 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=3675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.1999 14:51:49

0.0055721086 = product of:
  0.016716326 = sum of:
    0.016716326 = product of:
      0.03343265 = sum of:
        0.03343265 = weight(_text_:22 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03343265 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 667, 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=667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:41:17

0.004457687 = product of:
  0.013373061 = sum of:
    0.013373061 = product of:
      0.026746122 = sum of:
        0.026746122 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026746122 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22