Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0139165055 = product of:
  0.041749515 = sum of:
    0.041749515 = weight(_text_:on in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041749515 = score(doc=3670,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.38036036 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Presents an overview of research on information use. The majority of use and user studies are surveys which focus on the consulting of different information sources and channels. In most studies, however, the substantial issues of information use are omitted. Discusses conceptual and terminological questions of information use and knowledge utilization. No consensus on the definition of these concepts exists among researchers because they can have no direct access to individual processes of information use. Examines the contributions made to information use theory by Brenda Dervin and Robert S. Taylor. Reviews the categories of uses specified in Dervin's sense making theory and discusses Taylor's concept of information use environments. Considers some methodological questions concerning the challenges of empirical research on information use

Footnote

Research on information use in the field of information studies

0.013523031 = product of:
  0.040569093 = sum of:
    0.040569093 = product of:
      0.081138186 = sum of:
        0.081138186 = weight(_text_:22 in 4155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081138186 = score(doc=4155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 10:22:39

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=27,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 27, 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=27)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Homonymy is known to often cause false drops in free text searching in a full text database. The problem is quite common and difficult to avoid in Finnish, but nobody has examined it before. Reports on a study that examined the frequency of, and solutions to, the homonymy problem, based on searches made in a Finnish full text database containing about 55.000 newspaper articles. The results indicate that homonymy is not a very serious problem in full text searching, with only about 1 search result set out of 4 containing false drops caused by homonymy. Several other reasons for nonrelevance were much more common. However, in some set results there were a considerable number of homonymy errors, so the number seems to be very random. A study was also made into whether homonyms can be disambiguated by syntactic analysis. The result was that 75,2% of homonyms were disambiguated by this method. Verb homonyms were considerably easier to disambiguate than substantives. Although homonymy is not a very big problem it could perhaps easily be eliminated if there was a suitable syntactic analyzer in the IR system

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=628)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the problems caused by the growth of bibliographic databases. Major problems are caused by seacrh systems based on Boolean operations because of the slowness, broad indexing and user difficulties due to present user links and search systems. Some suggested solutions are: use of combined search algorithms, more specific indexing, thesauri and improved user links

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Strategies for searching the Internet: how do you use what you know on the net?