Search (97 results, page 1 of 5)

0.0055932454 = product of:
  0.044745963 = sum of:
    0.044745963 = product of:
      0.06711894 = sum of:
        0.033711098 = weight(_text_:29 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033711098 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
        0.03340785 = weight(_text_:22 in 1628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03340785 = score(doc=1628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1628)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

29. 7.1998 10:57:22

0.0055932454 = product of:
  0.044745963 = sum of:
    0.044745963 = product of:
      0.06711894 = sum of:
        0.033711098 = weight(_text_:29 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033711098 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
        0.03340785 = weight(_text_:22 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03340785 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:07:29

0.005155518 = product of:
  0.020622073 = sum of:
    0.012270111 = product of:
      0.03681033 = sum of:
        0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03681033 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 5228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5228)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008351962 = product of:
      0.025055885 = sum of:
        0.025055885 = weight(_text_:22 in 5228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025055885 = score(doc=5228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5228, 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=5228)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Bilal, in this third part of her Yahooligans! study looks at children's performance with self-generated search tasks, as compared to previously assigned search tasks looking for differences in success, cognitive behavior, physical behavior, and task preference. Lotus ScreenCam was used to record interactions and post search interviews to record impressions. The subjects, the same 22 seventh grade children in the previous studies, generated topics of interest that were mediated with the researcher into more specific topics where necessary. Fifteen usable sessions form the basis of the study. Eleven children were successful in finding information, a rate of 73% compared to 69% in assigned research questions, and 50% in assigned fact-finding questions. Eighty-seven percent began using one or two keyword searches. Spelling was a problem. Successful children made fewer keyword searches and the number of search moves averaged 5.5 as compared to 2.4 on the research oriented task and 3.49 on the factual. Backtracking and looping were common. The self-generated task was preferred by 47% of the subjects.

0.0043381397 = product of:
  0.034705117 = sum of:
    0.034705117 = product of:
      0.104115345 = sum of:
        0.104115345 = weight(_text_:problem in 991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.104115345 = score(doc=991,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.7958409 = fieldWeight in 991, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=991)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Multitasking is the human ability to handle the demands of multiple tasks. Multitasking behavior involves the ordering of multiple tasks and switching between tasks. People often multitask when using information retrieval (IR) technologies as they seek information on more than one information problem over single or multiple search episodes. However, limited studies have examined how people order their information problems, especially during their Web search engine interaction. The aim of our exploratory study was to investigate assigned information problem ordering by forty (40) study participants engaged in Web search. Findings suggest that assigned information problem ordering was influenced by the following factors, including personal interest, problem knowledge, perceived level of information available on the Web, ease of finding information, level of importance and seeking information on information problems in order from general to specific. Personal interest and problem knowledge were the major factors during assigned information problem ordering. Implications of the findings and further research are discussed. The relationship between information problem ordering and gratification theory is an important area for further exploration.

0.0043120594 = product of:
  0.017248238 = sum of:
    0.010225092 = product of:
      0.030675275 = sum of:
        0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 5242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030675275 = score(doc=5242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 5242, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5242)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.007023146 = product of:
      0.021069437 = sum of:
        0.021069437 = weight(_text_:29 in 5242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021069437 = score(doc=5242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5242, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5242)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In "Part 3. Successive Searching.'' where Spink is the primary author, after a review of the work on successive searching, a portion of the Texas generated data is reviewed for insights on how frequently successive searching occurred, the motivation for its occurrence, and any distinctive characteristics of the successive search pattern. Of 18 mediated searches, half requested a second search and a quarter a third search. All but one seeker reported a need to refine and enhance the previous results. Second searches while characterized as refinements included a significantly higher number of items retrieved and more search cycles. Third searches had the most cycles but less retrieved items than the second. Number of terms utilized did not change significantly and overlap was limited to about one in five terms between first and second searches. No overlap occurred between the second and third searches. Problem solving stage shifts did occur with 2 moving to a later stage after the first search, 5 remaining in the same stage and one reverting to a previous stage. Precision did not increase over successive searches, but partial relevant judgments decreased between the second and third search.

Date

21. 7.2006 14:29:18

0.004296265 = product of:
  0.01718506 = sum of:
    0.010225092 = product of:
      0.030675275 = sum of:
        0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030675275 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 2680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2680)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0069599687 = product of:
      0.020879906 = sum of:
        0.020879906 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020879906 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This study addresses the impact of domain expertise (i.e. of prior knowledge of the domain) on the performance and query strategies used by users while searching for information. Twenty-four experts (psychology students) and 24 non-experts (students from other disciplines) had to search for psychology information from the Universalis website in order to perform six information problems of varying complexity: two simple problems (the keywords required to complete the task were provided in the problem statement), two more difficult problems (the keywords required had to be inferred) and two impossible problems (no answer was provided by the website). The results showed that participants with prior knowledge in the domain (experts in psychology) performed better (i.e. reached more correct answers after shorter search times) than non-experts. This difference was stronger as the complexity of the problems increased. This study also showed that experts and non-experts displayed different query strategies. Experts reformulated the impossible problems more often than non-experts, because they produced new queries with psychology-related keywords. The participants rarely used thematic category tool and when they did so this did not enhance their performance.

Date

25. 1.2016 18:46:22

0.003511573 = product of:
  0.028092584 = sum of:
    0.028092584 = product of:
      0.08427775 = sum of:
        0.08427775 = weight(_text_:29 in 4401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08427775 = score(doc=4401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.77730644 = fieldWeight in 4401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=4401)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Bibliothekar. 29(1975), S.659-664

0.0034496475 = product of:
  0.01379859 = sum of:
    0.008180073 = product of:
      0.02454022 = sum of:
        0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 6546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02454022 = score(doc=6546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 6546, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6546)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0056185164 = product of:
      0.016855549 = sum of:
        0.016855549 = weight(_text_:29 in 6546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016855549 = score(doc=6546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 6546, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6546)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This research continues to explore the user's evaluation of Web search engines using a methodology proposed by Su (1997) and tested in a pilot study (Su, Chen, & Dong, 1998). It seeks to generate useful insight for system design and improvement, and for engine choice. The researchers were interested in how undergraduate students used four selected engines to retrieve information for their studies or personal interests and how they evaluated the interaction and search results retrieved by the four engines. Measures used were based on five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Thirty-six undergraduate juniors and seniors were recruited from the disciplines of sciences, social sciences and humanities. Each searched his/her own topic on all four engines in an assigned order and each made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her information need or problem. The study found some significant differences among the four engines but none dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Alta Vista had the highest number of relevant and partially relevant documents, the best relative recall and the highest precision ratio based on PR1, Alter Vista had significantly better scores for these three measures than for Lycos. Infoseek had the highest satisfaction rating for response time. Both Infoseek and Excite had significantly higher satisfaction ratings for response time than Lycos. Excite had the best score for output display. Excite and Alta Vista had significantly better scores for output display than Lycos. Excite had the best rating for time saving while Alta Vista achieved the best score for value of search results as a whole and for overall performance. Alta Vista and Excite had significantly better ratings for these three measures than Lycos. Lycos achieved the best relevance ranking performance. Further work will provide more complete picture for engine comparison and choice by taking into account participant characteristics and identify factors contributing to the user's satisfaction to gain better insight for system design and improvement

Date

29. 9.2001 20:39:10

0.003437012 = product of:
  0.013748048 = sum of:
    0.008180073 = product of:
      0.02454022 = sum of:
        0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02454022 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.005567975 = product of:
      0.016703924 = sum of:
        0.016703924 = weight(_text_:22 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016703924 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Previous empirical studies of searcher behaviour have drawn attention to a wide variety of factors that affect performance; for instance, the display of retrieved results can alter search strategies (Allen 1991, 1994), the information need type influences search behaviour, (Elkerton et al 1984, Marchionini 1995); while the task complexity, reflected in the information need can affect user's search behaviour (Large et al 1994). Furthermore, information source selection (Bassilli 1977), and the user's model of the system and domain impact on the search process (Michel 1994); while motivation (Solomon 1993, Jacobsen et al 1992) and the importance of the information need (Wendt 1969) also influence search duration and the effort a user will employ. Rouse and Rouse (1984) in a review of empirical studies, summarise a wide variety of variables that can effect searching behaviour, including payoff, costs of searching, resource available, amount of information sought, characteristics of the data and conflicts between documents. It appears that user behaviour is inconsistent in the search strategies adopted even for the same search need and system (Davidson 1977, Iivonen 1995). Theories of searcher behaviour have been proposed that provide explanations of aspects of end-user behaviour, such as the evolution of the user's information need and the problems of articulating a query, [Bates (1979, 1989), Markey and Atherton 1978], effective search strategies in browsing and goal directed searches [Marchionini 1995, Belkin (1987, 1993)], the linguistic problem of matching search terms with indexing terms or content of target documents through an expert intermediary (Ingwersen 1982) or cognitive aspects of IR (Kulthau 1984, Ingwersen 1996).

Date

22. 3.2002 9:54:13

0.0034296005 = product of:
  0.027436804 = sum of:
    0.027436804 = product of:
      0.08231041 = sum of:
        0.08231041 = weight(_text_:problem in 5239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08231041 = score(doc=5239,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.6291675 = fieldWeight in 5239, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5239)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In "Part 4. Cognitive Styles in Information Seeking,'' where Ford is the primary author, the results of the application of the Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis and the Pask's holist/serialist portion of the Ford's Study Process Questionnaire to the 111 U.K. participants. were correlated using Spearman's coefficient with reports of focused thinking, degree of change in the intermediary's perception of the problem and personal knowledge, problem stage, degree of differentiating activity, change in problem perception, engagement in exploring activity, changes in questioning, valuing of serendipitous information, and other variables. The results would indicate that field independent individuals report clearer more focused thinking, see themselves in an earlier problem stage, and report higher levels of change in perception of the problem. Holists value serendipity and report engagement in Kuhlthau's exploring stage. They are seen by intermediaries as exhibiting fewer changes in questioning behavior. A fifth section will appear in a later issue.

0.0031307822 = product of:
  0.025046257 = sum of:
    0.025046257 = product of:
      0.07513877 = sum of:
        0.07513877 = weight(_text_:problem in 6714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07513877 = score(doc=6714,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.5743487 = fieldWeight in 6714, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6714)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In this paper, we report on the second part of an empirical study designed to observe how users interact with World Wide Web resources. Applying a holistic approach, the researches examine users' cognitive, affective, and physical behaviors during user-Web interaction in order to understand better the nature of information retrieval on the Web, the needs of Web users, and the problem-solving strategies Web users employ. From analyses and the participant verbalizations collected during monitored searches, the researchers developed a taxonomy of problem solving strategies. The coding scheme was developed based on a content analysis of the integrated process data. Information from triangulation follow-up with participants via anonymously completed questionnaires, the taxonomy, and analyses of search transcripts were collected to determine 1) what problems users encountered during the interaction and how users solved these problems; and 2) which problem-solving strategies Web users considered and selected for finding factual information. The focus of the coding was on the participants' cognitive, affective, and physical behaviors in response to the components of the problems encountered, which included problems of the following types: Web interfaces, users' mental models, and the Web information sources. Searching behavior and problem-solving patterns are described and interpreted within the relevant situational context and the problems users encountered are identified and analyzed. Both the problems users faced and their problem-solving approaches endeavored evidence a strong reliance on mental models of the features available on sites, the location of those features, and other interface design concepts

0.0026565571 = product of:
  0.021252457 = sum of:
    0.021252457 = product of:
      0.06375737 = sum of:
        0.06375737 = weight(_text_:problem in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06375737 = score(doc=2874,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.48735106 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Reports results of a study of the use of metaphors as problem solving mechanisms by novice searchers of bibliographic databases. Metaphors provide a framework or 'familiar structure' of credible associations within which relationships in other domains may be considered. 28 students taking an undergraduate course in information retrieval at Sydney University of Technology, were recorded as they 'talked through' a search on a bibliographic retrieval system. The transcripts were analyzed using conventional methods and the NUDIST software package for qualitative research. A range of metaphors was apparent from the language use by students in the search process. Those which predominated were: a journey; human interaction; a building or matching process; a problem solving process, and a search for a quantity. Many of the studentes experiencing the interaction as a problem solving process or a search for quantity perceived the outcomes as successful. Concludes that when memory for operating methods and procedures is incomplete an unconscious approach through the use of a conceptual system which is consonant with the task at hand may also lead to success in bibliographic searching

0.0026565571 = product of:
  0.021252457 = sum of:
    0.021252457 = product of:
      0.06375737 = sum of:
        0.06375737 = weight(_text_:problem in 5232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06375737 = score(doc=5232,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.48735106 = fieldWeight in 5232, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5232)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In "Part 2. Uncertainty and Its Correlates,'' where Wilson is the primary author, after a review of uncertainty as a concept in information seeking and decision research, it is hypothesized that if the Kuhlthau problem solving stage model is appropriate the searchers will recognize the stage in which they currently are operating. Secondly to test Wilson's contention that operationalized uncertainty would be useful in characterizing users, it is hypothesized that uncertainty will decrease as the searcher proceeds through problem stages and after the completion of the search. A review of pre and post search interviews reveals that uncertainty can be operationalized, and that academic researchers have no difficulty with a stage model of the information seeking process. Uncertainty is unrelated to sex, age, or discipline, but is related to problem stage and domain knowledge. Both concepts appear robust.

0.002556273 = product of:
  0.020450184 = sum of:
    0.020450184 = product of:
      0.06135055 = sum of:
        0.06135055 = weight(_text_:problem in 6364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06135055 = score(doc=6364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.46895373 = fieldWeight in 6364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6364)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Difficulties in accessing databases are linked to the (mostly different) organization of knowledge in a consulted field. These difficulties pose the problem of how to assist a user in his search

0.002435989 = product of:
  0.019487912 = sum of:
    0.019487912 = product of:
      0.058463734 = sum of:
        0.058463734 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058463734 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.002435989 = product of:
  0.019487912 = sum of:
    0.019487912 = product of:
      0.058463734 = sum of:
        0.058463734 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058463734 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3924)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.0021690698 = product of:
  0.017352559 = sum of:
    0.017352559 = product of:
      0.052057672 = sum of:
        0.052057672 = weight(_text_:problem in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052057672 = score(doc=5233,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.39792046 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Ellis, et alia, now provide part five of their study on mediated searching which is treated separately here because of the presence of additional authors. The data source remains cases collected from 198 individuals, 87 in Texas and 111 in Sheffield in the U.K. but the focus here is on seeker/intermediary interaction utilizing the Saracevic triadic IR model, and the method is the analysis of discourse. While the pre-search interview stressed problem definition, interaction during the search in terms of relevance and magnitude continued to develop the problem statement. The user and intermediary focused on search tactics, review and relevance, while the intermediary interaction with the system was comprised of terminology and answers. The interaction clearly affected the search process. Users and intermediaries considered the process effective and users felt the intermediary increased their overall satisfaction.

0.0020879905 = product of:
  0.016703924 = sum of:
    0.016703924 = product of:
      0.05011177 = sum of:
        0.05011177 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05011177 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, 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=2973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.0020450184 = product of:
  0.016360147 = sum of:
    0.016360147 = product of:
      0.04908044 = sum of:
        0.04908044 = weight(_text_:problem in 280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04908044 = score(doc=280,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.375163 = fieldWeight in 280, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=280)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

More complex contexts of information seeking require extensive thinking that involves an intellectual leap which carries the user `beyond the information given' (Bruner, 1973) to the construction of something `new'. According to Arnheim (1969) such thinking is directly affected by one's visual perception of the world and he argues that the most productive thinking results from this imagery. The application of visual or mental imagery to the relationships and structure in information seeking situations may be thought of as a constructive strategy for making meaning. This paper explores the use of mental imagery in the constructive process of information seeking. For the individual, the meaning of information is not inherent in the information itself but in his or her perception of it and how it fits into an image of the world or personal construct system (Boulding, 1961; Kelly, 1963). The use of imagery may facilitate a user's mental image of information and its relation to previously acquired knowledge and, thus, also facilitate new construction during the information seeking process. Mental imagery has been found to play an important role in creativity and problem solving. Shepard (1978) argues that some of the most creative thoughts and solutions which humans devise are those which are not confined to expression within linear verbal communication but rather spring from mental imagery that embraces a spatial approach to problem solving. Mental imagery is more concrete and visually constructive in nature than verbal methods of problem solving. This paper explores the role of imagery in the constructive tasks of problem solving and learning in the information seeking process.

0.0018075579 = product of:
  0.014460463 = sum of:
    0.014460463 = product of:
      0.04338139 = sum of:
        0.04338139 = weight(_text_:problem in 301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04338139 = score(doc=301,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030822188 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 301, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=301)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper presents the initial stages of the development of a three-dimensional model as a theoretical framework for conceptualizing and exploring interactive information retrieval (IR) with an information seeking context. The model, displayed in Figure 1, includes a Plane of Judgment within a Plane of Interaction within a Plane of Time. The Plane of Judgment includes levels and regions of relevance judgments, and other user judgments during interactive IR, e.g., magnitude or strategy feedback, tactics, search strategies, or search terms. The Plane of Judgment exists within a Plane of Interaction. The Plane of Interaction consists of interactive IR models, including Ingwersen (1992, 1996), Belkin, Cool, Stein and Theil (1995), and Saracevic (1996b, 1997). The Plane of Interaction includes movement or shifts within interactions or search episodes, e.g., tactics, information problem, strategies, terms, feedback, goal states, or uncertainty. IR interactions that occur within a Plane of Interaction exist within a Plane of Time. The Plane of Time includes users' information seeking stages, represented in the model by Kuhlthau's Information Search Process Model (1993) and users' successive searches over time related to the same or evolving information problem (Spink, 1996). The three-dimensional model is a framework for the development of theoretical and empirical research to: 1. Integrate interactive IR research within information-seeking context 2. Explore users' interactive IR episodes within their changing information-seeking contexts 3. Examine relevance judgments within users' information seeking processes 4. Broaden relevance research to include the concurrent exploration of relevance judgment level, region and time