Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015368836 = product of:
  0.07684418 = sum of:
    0.07684418 = weight(_text_:index in 3469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07684418 = score(doc=3469,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 3469, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3469)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Domain novice users in the beginning stages of researching a topic find themselves searching for information via information retrieval (IR) systems before they have identified their information need. Pre-Internet access technologies adapted by current IR systems poorly serve these domain novice users, whose behavior might be characterized as rudderless and without a compass. In this article we describe a conceptual design for an information retrieval system that incorporates standard information need identification classification and subject cataloging schemes, called the INIIReye System, and a study that tests the efficacy of the innovative part of the INIIReye System, called the Associative Index. The Associative Index helps the user put together his or her associative thoughts-Vannevar Bush's idea of associative indexing for his Memex machine that he never actually described. For the first time, data from the study reported here quantitatively supports the theoretical notion that the information seeker's information need is identified through transformation of his/her knowledge structure (i.e., the seeker's cognitive map or perspective an the task far which information is being sought).

0.010867408 = product of:
  0.054337036 = sum of:
    0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 4588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054337036 = score(doc=4588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4588, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4588)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article reports a study of 45 Ph.D. history students and the effect of a technique of information seeking on their role as experts in training. It is assumed that the primary task of these students is to prove in their thesis that they have crossed over the line separating novice and expert, which they do by producing a thesis that makes both a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. Their information-seeking behavior, therefore, is a function of this primary task. It was observed that many of the Ph.D. students collected 'names' of people, places and things and assembled data about these names on 3x5 inch index cards. The 'names' were used as access points to the primary and secondary source material they had to read for their thesis. Besides using name collection as an information accessing technique, the larger importance of collecting 'names' is what it does for the Ph.D. student in terms of their primary task (to produce a thesis that proves they have become experts in their field). The article's thesis is that by inducing certain characteristics of expert thinking, the name collection technique's primary purpose is to push the student across the line into expert thinking

0.010867408 = product of:
  0.054337036 = sum of:
    0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054337036 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 14:51:49

0.00697911 = product of:
  0.03489555 = sum of:
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:41:17

0.005583288 = product of:
  0.02791644 = sum of:
    0.02791644 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02791644 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22