Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009527635 = product of:
  0.07622108 = sum of:
    0.055614963 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055614963 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3094179 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
    0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02060612 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This article elaborates the picture of information use from the perspective of interpreting informational cues about the attributes of entities. It is assumed that such activity draws on cognitive mechanisms that are employed as the constituents of diverse interpretation approaches to informational cues. The empirical data of the study were gathered by means of think aloud method from 16 prospective homebuyers in 2008. The participants interpreted informational cues available in announcements published in a printed housing listing issue and a Web-based information system serving the needs of prospective homebuyers. The data were examined by means of qualitative content analysis. By drawing on the findings of Zhang and her associates, the study revealed 7 cognitive mechanisms: identification of key attributes, specification, evaluation, comparison by similarity, comparison by differentiation, explanation, and conclusion. Three major approaches employed in the interpetation of informational cues were identified. The descriptive-evaluative approach draws on the identification and evaluation of individual attributes of an entity. The comparative approach is more sophisticated because it is based on the evaluation of the attributes by their perceived similarity or differentiation. Finally, the explanatory approach draws on the identification of attributes with causal potential.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2244-2254

0.008381055 = product of:
  0.06704844 = sum of:
    0.055840094 = weight(_text_:2nd in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055840094 = score(doc=283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18010403 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31004354 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
    0.011208346 = product of:
      0.022416692 = sum of:
        0.022416692 = weight(_text_:ed in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022416692 = score(doc=283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.19644247 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13-15 August 1998, Sheffield, UK. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.0077341297 = product of:
  0.061873037 = sum of:
    0.04126692 = weight(_text_:author in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04126692 = score(doc=4477,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
    0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02060612 = score(doc=4477,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

This exploratory study contributes to research on relevance assessment by specifying criteria that are used in the judgment of information quality and credibility in Internet discussion forums. To this end, 4,739 messages posted to 160 Finnish discussion threads were analyzed. Of the messages, 20.5% contained explicit judgments of the quality of information and credibility in other messages. In the judgments, the forum participants employed both positive criteria such as validity of information and negative criteria such as dishonesty in argumentation. In the evaluation of the quality of the message's information content, the most frequently used criteria pertained to the usefulness, correctness, and specificity of information. In the judgment of information credibility, the main criteria included the reputation, expertise, and honesty of the author of the message. Since Internet discussion forums tend to emphasize the role of disputational discourse questioning rather than accepting the views presented by others, mainly negative criteria were used in the judgments. The generality of our claims is limited because we chose forums that focused on sensitive and value-laden topics; future work could explore credibility and quality judgment in other forums and forumlike venues such as question and answer sites as well as exploring how quality and credibility judgments interact with other aspects of forum use.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1243-1256

0.004122354 = product of:
  0.032978833 = sum of:
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 3713, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3713)
    0.010869532 = product of:
      0.021739064 = sum of:
        0.021739064 = weight(_text_:22 in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021739064 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3713, 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=3713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the picture of the motivators for information behaviour by examining the nature of information need as a trigger and driver of information seeking. Design/methodology/approach Conceptual analysis focusing on the ways in which the researchers have conceptualized information need in models for human information behaviour (HIB). The study draws on conceptual analysis of 26 key studies focusing on the above topic. Findings Researchers have employed two main approaches to conceptualize information needs in the HIB models. First, information need is approached as a root factor which motivates people to identify and access information sources. Second, information need is approached as a secondary trigger or driver determined by more fundamental factors, for example, the information requirements of task performance. The former approach conceptualizes information need as a trigger providing an initial impetus to information seeking, while the latter approach also depicts information need as a driver that keeps the information-seeking process in motion. The latter approach is particularly characteristic of models depicting information seeking as a cyclic process. Research limitations/implications As the study focuses on information need, no attention is devoted to related constructs such as anomalous state of knowledge and uncertainty. Originality/value The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of information need as a trigger and driver of information seeking. The findings refine the picture of motivators for information behaviour.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0036108557 = product of:
  0.05777369 = sum of:
    0.05777369 = weight(_text_:author in 719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05777369 = score(doc=719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=719)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Issues of becoming an Internet user primarily in non-work contexts are discussed. The author reviews individual, social and economic factors motivating network use. Main findings of an empirical study based on the interviews of 23 Finns in 1997 are analysed. In addition, comparisons are made with the findings of the Consumer Research Project (1996-98), conducted in Finland. The main motivating factors leading to network use were the requirements of work and study; also making everyday transactions easier, for example by home banking, was seen as important. The network connections were also acquired for keeping in contact with others and for hobbies, whereas entertainment purposes were not valued.

0.0034759352 = product of:
  0.055614963 = sum of:
    0.055614963 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055614963 = score(doc=526,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3094179 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The present study contributes to the development of integrated models for information behavior and practices at the domain-specific level. To this end, the model for everyday information practices proposed by Savolainen in 2008 is enhanced by integrating the element of information creating, based on Thomson's recent 2018 study. The integration resulted in the expanded model for everyday information practices. Using conceptual analysis, the above model was examined in light of conventional (positivist and post-positivist) and interpretive (social constructivist) criteria for theory assessment. The findings suggest that the integrated model meets best the interpretive criteria such as meaningfulness and understandability, mutuality of concepts and descriptive logic, empirical verifiability, and usefulness. In contrast, theoretical potential of the model is fairly limited when weighed against the conventional criteria, such as generalization and prediction. Overall, the findings suggest that, in its current form, the expanded model cannot be regarded as a "genuine theory" of everyday information practices. However, the model does incorporate many of the qualities characteristic of social scientific theories, and thus exhibits considerable theoretical potential. This is even more so if the interpretive, naturalistic basis of the data in which the expanded model is based is considered.

0.0030950191 = product of:
  0.049520306 = sum of:
    0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049520306 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The author reviews the major approaches and central findings of empirical research use studies. 6 major approaches were identified by cross-tabulating 2 criteria: the major context of network use (job-related vs. non-work) and the social level of variables (individual vs. group level). Examples of all types of studies are presented. Themajority of studies can be classified among the surveys focusing on frequencies of service use. From these studies, analyses of job-related are the most advanced both theoretically and methodologically while studies focused on non-work context of use are less established in this sense. The qualitative research settings seem to gain more popularity, thus making the use studies more balanced methodologically. The strengths and weaknesses of the research approaches are assessed and conclusions are drawn concerning the development of more context sensitive analyses of network uses

0.0030950191 = product of:
  0.049520306 = sum of:
    0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049520306 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The author reflects the conceptual and practical questions of network competence in the context of information seeking. Network competence is seen as one of the information-related competences and is defined as the mastery of four major areas: knowledge of information resources available on the Internet, skilled use of the ICT tools to access information, judgment of the relevance of information, and communication. Drawing on the ideas of the social cognitive theory developed by Albert Bandura, a model of network competence is introduced in order to discuss network competence "in action". In the model, network competence is put in practical context by relating five major factors: network competence, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, affective factors such as anxiety, and experiences received from information seeking on the Internet. Particular attention is devoted to the connections between network competence and self-efficacy which denote a person's judgment of his or her ability to organize and execute action, such as finding information on the Web.

0.0027807483 = product of:
  0.044491973 = sum of:
    0.044491973 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 2319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044491973 = score(doc=2319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.24753433 = fieldWeight in 2319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2319)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to specify the role of emotions played in information seeking and sharing taking place in online discussion forum. To this end, an explorative study was made that focussed on consumer awareness. Design/methodology/approach - The study is based on the analysis of a sample of 30 discussion threads containing altogether 1,630 messages available in Canadian Content - a major online platform. The expression of emotions was examined by using the categories of the interaction process analysis (IPA) model. Two research questions were addressed: first, what kind of emotions are expressed in the four functional areas of the IPA model when discussing online about consumer awareness? and second, what is the role of positive and negative emotions in information seeking and sharing about the above topic? The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Findings - Of the emotional expressions, 42 percent were positive and 58 percent negative. The most frequent emotions were amusement, contempt, worry, irritation and pleasure. The frequencies of positive and emotional expressions varied in the context of 12 IPA categories. Positive emotions predominated when participants showed solidarity or agreed, while negative emotions were particularly prevalent when indicating antagonism. The repertoire of positive and negative emotions was broadest while providing opinions or sharing information with others. In contrast, emotions were expressed rarely in the context of information seeking. Research limitations/implications - The study is explorative in nature and the findings are based on the examination of an online discussion group focussed on the issues of consumer awareness. Originality/value - The study contributes to the study of affective factors in computer-mediated interaction by empirically specifying the repertoire of positive and negative emotions expressed in online discussion.

0.001934564 = product of:
  0.030953024 = sum of:
    0.030953024 = weight(_text_:26 in 3670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030953024 = score(doc=3670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 3670, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3670)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Date

29. 3.1996 21:35:26

0.0016581976 = product of:
  0.026531162 = sum of:
    0.026531162 = weight(_text_:26 in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026531162 = score(doc=3428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Date

16.11.2017 13:26:41

0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1116-1125

0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.12, S.1709-1719

0.0015454589 = product of:
  0.024727343 = sum of:
    0.024727343 = weight(_text_:american in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024727343 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22601068 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2536-2548

0.0013818314 = product of:
  0.022109302 = sum of:
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=3361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 3361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3361)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Date

23.10.2016 19:15:26

0.0013818314 = product of:
  0.022109302 = sum of:
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 5981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=5981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 5981, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5981)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Date

26. 9.2020 16:06:20

0.0011888248 = product of:
  0.019021196 = sum of:
    0.019021196 = product of:
      0.038042393 = sum of:
        0.038042393 = weight(_text_:ed in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038042393 = score(doc=3780,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.33337396 = fieldWeight in 3780, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0011208346 = product of:
  0.017933354 = sum of:
    0.017933354 = product of:
      0.035866708 = sum of:
        0.035866708 = weight(_text_:ed in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035866708 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.31430796 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Source

Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14-16 August 1996, Tampere, Finland. Ed.: P. Vakkari u.a

6.7934574E-4 = product of:
  0.010869532 = sum of:
    0.010869532 = product of:
      0.021739064 = sum of:
        0.021739064 = weight(_text_:22 in 5498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021739064 = score(doc=5498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5498, 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=5498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22