Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

6.2775286E-4 = product of:
  0.00439427 = sum of:
    0.00439427 = product of:
      0.02197135 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=2691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2691)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We report a naturalistic interactive information retrieval (IIR) study of 18 ordinary users in the age of 20-25 who carry out everyday-life information seeking (ELIS) on the Internet with respect to the three types of information needs identified by Ingwersen (1986): the verificative information need (VIN), the conscious topical information need (CIN), and the muddled topical information need (MIN). The searches took place in the private homes of the users in order to ensure as realistic searching as possible. Ingwersen (1996) associates a given search behaviour to each of the three types of information needs, which are analytically deduced, but not yet empirically tested. Thus the objective of the study is to investigate whether empirical data does, or does not, conform to the predictions derived from the three types of information needs. The main conclusion is that the analytically deduced information search behaviour characteristics by Ingwersen are positively corroborated for this group of test participants who search the Internet as part of ELIS.

5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=3091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Because of the increasing presence of scientific publications an the Web, combined with the existing difficulties in easily verifying and retrieving these publications, research an techniques and methods for retrieval of scientific Web publications is called for. In this article, we report an the initial steps taken toward the construction of a test collection of scientific Web publications within the subject domain of plant biology. The steps reported are those of data gathering and data analysis aiming at identifying characteristics of scientific Web publications. The data used in this article were generated based an specifically selected domain topics that are searched for in three publicly accessible search engines (Google, AlITheWeb, and AItaVista). A sample of the retrieved hits was analyzed with regard to how various publication attributes correlated with the scientific quality of the content and whether this information could be employed to harvest, filter, and rank Web publications. The attributes analyzed were inlinks, outlinks, bibliographic references, file format, language, search engine overlap, structural position (according to site structure), and the occurrence of various types of metadata. As could be expected, the ranked output differs between the three search engines. Apparently, this is caused by differences in ranking algorithms rather than the databases themselves. In fact, because scientific Web content in this subject domain receives few inlinks, both AItaVista and AlITheWeb retrieved a higher degree of accessible scientific content than Google. Because of the search engine cutoffs of accessible URLs, the feasibility of using search engine output for Web content analysis is also discussed.