Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=5085,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate an existing set of search tasks in terms of their effectiveness as part of a "shared infrastructure" for conducting interactive IR research. Twenty search tasks that varied in their cognitive complexity and domain were assigned to 47 study participants; the 3,101 moves used to complete those tasks were then analyzed in terms of frequency of each type of move and the sequential patterns they formed. The cognitive complexity of the tasks influenced the number of moves used to complete the tasks, with the most complex (i.e., Create) tasks requiring more moves than tasks at other levels of complexity. Across the four domains, the Commerce tasks elicited more search moves per search. When sequences of moves were analyzed, seven patterns were identified; some of these patterns were associated with particular task characteristics. The findings suggest that search tasks can be designed to elicit particular types of search behaviors and, thus, allow researchers to focus attention on particular aspects of IR interactions.

0.0053345575 = product of:
  0.016003672 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 2221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=2221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2221, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2221)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users