Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.024923189 = product of:
  0.08723116 = sum of:
    0.025709987 = weight(_text_:wide in 6678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025709987 = score(doc=6678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 6678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6678)
    0.03118895 = weight(_text_:web in 6678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03118895 = score(doc=6678,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 6678, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6678)
    0.013385445 = weight(_text_:information in 6678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013385445 = score(doc=6678,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25731003 = fieldWeight in 6678, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6678)
    0.016946774 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016946774 = score(doc=6678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 6678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6678)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

A growing body of research is beginning to explore the information-seeking behavior of Web users. The vast majority of these studies have concentrated on the area of textual information retrieval (IR). Little research has examined how people search for non-textual information on the Internet, and few large-scale studies have investigated visual information-seeking behavior with Web search engines. This study examined visual information needs as expressed in users' Web image queries. The data set examined consisted of 1,025,908 sequential queries from 211,058 users of EXCITE, a major Internet search service. Twenty-eight (28) terms were used to identify queries for both still and moving images, resulting in a subset of 33,149 image queries by 9,855 users. We provide data on: (1) image queries -- the number of queries and the number of search terms per user, (2) image search sessions -- the number of queries per user, modifications made to subsequent queries in a session, and (3) image terms -- their rank/frequency distribution and the most highly used search terms. On average, there were 3. 36 image queries per user containing an average of 3.74 terms per query. Image queries contained a large number of unique terms. The most frequently occurring image related terms appeared less than 10 percent of the time, with most terms occurring only once. This analysis is contrasted to earlier work by Enser (1995) who examined written queries for pictorial information in a non-digital environment. Implications for the development of models for visual information retrieval, and for the design of Web search engines are discussed

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.010779915 = product of:
  0.075459406 = sum of:
    0.019976506 = weight(_text_:information in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019976506 = score(doc=3763,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
    0.055482898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055482898 = score(doc=3763,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.61896384 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Develops a theoretical framework for expressing the nature of feedback as a critical process in interactive information retrieval. Feedback concepts from cybernetics and social sciences perspectives are used to develop a concept of information feedback applicable to information retrieval. Adapts models from human-computer interaction and interactive information retrieval as a framework for studying the manifestations of feedback in information retrieval. Presents results from an empirical study of real-life interactions between users, professional mediators and an information retrieval system computer. Presents data involving 885 feedback loops classified in 5 categories. Presents a connection between the theoretical framework and empirical observations and provides a number of pragmatic and research suggestions

Footnote

Contribution to a special section of articles related to human-computer interaction and information retrieval

0.010480289 = product of:
  0.07336202 = sum of:
    0.019771613 = weight(_text_:information in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019771613 = score(doc=158,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.38007212 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
    0.05359041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05359041 = score(doc=158,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.59785134 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Reports results from a study exploring the information retrieval and types of interactive feedback during mediated information retrieval. Identifies 5 different types of interactive feedback, extending the interactive information retrieval model to include relevance, magnitude, and strategy interactive feedback. Discusses implications for further research, investigating the nature and model of interactive feedback in information retrieval

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.5, S.382-394

0.009018487 = product of:
  0.06312941 = sum of:
    0.021188283 = weight(_text_:information in 3265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021188283 = score(doc=3265,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40730494 = fieldWeight in 3265, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3265)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=3265,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 3265, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3265)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Considers what elicitation or requests for information search intermediaries make of users with information requests during an information retrieval interaction - including prior to and during an information retrieval interaction - and for what purpose. Reports a study of elicitations during 40 mediated information retrieval interactions. Identifies a total of 1.557 search intermediary elicitations within 15 purpose categories. The elicitation purposes of search intermediaries included requests for information on search terms and strategies, database selection, search procedures, system's outputs and relevance of retrieved items, and users' knowledge and previous information seeking. Investigates the transition sequences from 1 type of search intermediary elicitation to another. Compares these findings with results from a study of end user questions

Source

Information processing and management. 34(1998) nos.2/3, S.257-273

0.008521202 = product of:
  0.039765608 = sum of:
    0.012204607 = weight(_text_:web in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012204607 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
    0.012732573 = weight(_text_:information in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012732573 = score(doc=1255,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2447598 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
    0.014828428 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014828428 = score(doc=1255,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16542503 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

As digital libraries become a major source of information for many people, we need to know more about how people seek and retrieve information in digital environments. Quite commonly, users with a problem-at-hand and associated question-in-mind repeatedly search a literature for answers, and seek information in stages over extended periods from a variety of digital information resources. The process of repeatedly searching over time in relation to a specific, but possibly an evolving information problem (including changes or shifts in a variety of variables), is called the successive search phenomenon. The study outlined in this paper is currently investigating this new and little explored line of inquiry for information retrieval, Web searching, and digital libraries. The purpose of the research project is to investigate the nature, manifestations, and behavior of successive searching by users in digital environments, and to derive criteria for use in the design of information retrieval interfaces and systems supporting successive searching behavior. This study includes two related projects. The first project is based in the School of Library and Information Sciences at the University of North Texas and is funded by a National Science Foundation POWRE Grant <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/show?award=9753277>. The second project is based at the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield (UK) and is funded by a grant from the British Library <http://www.shef. ac.uk/~is/research/imrg/uncerty.html> Research and Innovation Center. The broad objectives of each project are to examine the nature and extent of successive search episodes in digital environments by real users over time. The specific aim of the current project is twofold: * To characterize progressive changes and shifts that occur in: user situational context; user information problem; uncertainty reduction; user cognitive styles; cognitive and affective states of the user, and consequently in their queries; and * To characterize related changes over time in the type and use of information resources and search strategies particularly related to given capabilities of IR systems, and IR search engines, and examine changes in users' relevance judgments and criteria, and characterize their differences. The study is an observational, longitudinal data collection in the U.S. and U.K. Three questionnaires are used to collect data: reference, client post search and searcher post search questionnaires. Each successive search episode with a search intermediary for textual materials on the DIALOG Information Service is audiotaped and search transaction logs are recorded. Quantitative analysis includes statistical analysis using Likert scale data from the questionnaires and log-linear analysis of sequential data. Qualitative methods include: content analysis, structuring taxonomies; and diagrams to describe shifts and transitions within and between each search episode. Outcomes of the study are the development of appropriate model(s) for IR interactions in successive search episodes and the derivation of a set of design criteria for interfaces and systems supporting successive searching.

Theme

Information Gateway

0.007892762 = product of:
  0.055249333 = sum of:
    0.021355784 = weight(_text_:information in 4518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021355784 = score(doc=4518,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.41052482 = fieldWeight in 4518, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4518)
    0.033893548 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033893548 = score(doc=4518,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4518, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4518)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Describes a model of information seeking behaviour that views the information search process as proceeding through a series of cognitive states through which users progressively refine and reformulate their information problem. The model suggests that searches have several stages which evolve from vague and uncertain to clearer and directed and finally to focused and confident

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information Inc.

Source

Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, 26.-29.10.92. Ed.: D. Shaw

0.0076756445 = product of:
  0.053729508 = sum of:
    0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 1756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013536699 = score(doc=1756,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1756, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1756)
    0.04019281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04019281 = score(doc=1756,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1756, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1756)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Research into both the algorithmic and human approaches to information retrieval is required to improve information retrieval system design and database searching effectiveness. Uses the human approach to examine the sources and effectiveness of search terms selected during mediated interactive information retrieval. Focuses on determining the retrieval effectiveness of search terms identified by users and intermediaries from retrieved items during term relevance feedback. Results show that termns selected from particular database fields of retrieved items during term relevance feedback (TRF) were more effective than search terms from the intermediarity, database thesauri or users' domain knowledge during the interaction, but not as effective as terms from the users' written question statements. Implications for the design and testing of automatic relevance feedback techniques that place greater emphasis on these sources and the practice of database searching are also discussed

Source

Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.2, S.161-171

0.00683917 = product of:
  0.04787419 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 7441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=7441,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 7441, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7441)
    0.033893548 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033893548 = score(doc=7441,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 7441, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7441)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

State of the art review of the mechanisms of feedback in information retrieval (IR) in terms of feedback concepts and models in cybernetics and social sciences. Critically evaluates feedback research based on the traditional IR models and comparing the different approaches to automatic relevance feedback techniques, and feedback research within the framework of interactive IR models. Calls for an extension of the concept of feedback beyond relevance feedback to interactive feedback. Cites specific examples of feedback models used within IR research and presents 6 challenges to future research

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 31(1996), S.33-78

0.0066335746 = product of:
  0.04643502 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=206,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
    0.03594954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03594954 = score(doc=206,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.8, S.741-761

0.00599504 = product of:
  0.041965276 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=4032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
    0.033893548 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033893548 = score(doc=4032,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Presents selected results from a large study which observed under real-life conditions the interaction between users, intermediaries and computers before and during online searching. Concentrates on the sources of search terms and the relation between given search terms and retrieval of relevant and nonrelevant items as answers. Users provided the largest proportion of search terms (61%), followed by the thesuaurs (19%), relevance feedback (11%), and intermediary (9%). Only 4% of search terms resulted in retrieval of relevant items only; 60% retrieved relevant and nonrelevant items; 25% retrieved nonrelevant items only; and 11% retrieved nothing.

Imprint

Medford : Learned Information Inc.

0.005984274 = product of:
  0.041889917 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=4523,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=4523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a larger study whose objectives are to observe, under real life conditions, the nature and patterns of interaction between users, intermediaries, and computer sysrtems in the context of online information searching and retrieval. Reports various analyses on the relation of search term sources and the retrieval of items judges as to their relevance. While the users generated the largest proportion of search terms (61%) which were responsible for 68% of retrieved items judges relevant, other sources in the interaction process played an important role

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information Inc.

Source

Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, 26.-29.10.92. Ed.: D. Shaw

0.005984274 = product of:
  0.041889917 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 6981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=6981,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 6981, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6981)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=6981,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 6981, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6981)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Reports findings from an explanatory study investigating working notes created during encoding and external storage (EES) processes, by human search intermediaries using a Boolean information retrieval systems. Analysis of 221 sets of working notes created by human search intermediaries revealed extensive use of EES processes and the creation of working notes of textual, numerical and graphical entities. Nearly 70% of recorded working noted were textual/numerical entities, nearly 30 were graphical entities and 0,73% were indiscernible. Segmentation devices were also used in 48% of the working notes. The creation of working notes during the EES processes was a fundamental element within the mediated, interactive information retrieval process. Discusses implications for the design of interfaces to support users' EES processes and further research

Source

Information processing and management. 32(1996) no.6, S.681-695

0.0056635872 = product of:
  0.03964511 = sum of:
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=7824,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=7824,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Reports selected results from a large study, conducted at Rutgers University, NJ, which observed, under real life conditions the interactions between users, intermediaries and information retrieval systems before and during online searching. Examines the stages of the search process at which search terms from different sources were selected and how the search terms selected at different stages of the search process contributed to the retrieval of relevant items as judged by users. Notes the sequences in which terms were selected and analyzes the sequences to determine the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that there are regular patterns in search term selection during the online search process. Discusses the implications of these findings

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

0.0056246947 = product of:
  0.03937286 = sum of:
    0.018189391 = weight(_text_:information in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018189391 = score(doc=300,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.34965688 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=300,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

Source

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

0.0054210005 = product of:
  0.037947003 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 5805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=5805,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 5805, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5805)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=5805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5805)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Discusses a multiple search session model of end users' interaction with information retrieval systems based on results from an exploratory study investigating end users' search sessions over time with OPACs or CD-ROM databases at different stages of their information seeking related to a current research project. Interviews were conducted with 200 academic end users to investigate the occurrence of multiple search sessions

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.8, S.603-609

0.0046862117 = product of:
  0.03280348 = sum of:
    0.01482871 = weight(_text_:information in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01482871 = score(doc=3877,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=3877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3877, 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=3877)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Reports from a study investigating the extent to which academic end users conduct multiple search sessions, over time woth OPAC or CD-ROM databases at different stages of their information seeking related to a current research project. Interviews were conducted using a questionnaire with 200 academic end users at Rutgers University Alexander Library, NJ and University of North Texas, to investigate the occurrence of multiple search sessions. Results show that at the time of the survey interview, 57% of end users had conducted multiple search sessions during their research project and 86% of end users conducted their 1st search session at the beginning stage of their information seeking process. 49% of end users had conducted between 1 and 6 search sessions and 8% more than 6 search sessions. 70% of multiple search sessionss end users had modified their search terms since their 1st search session. Discusses the implications of the findings for end user training, information retrieval systems design and further research

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Forging new partnerships in information: converging technologies. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, ASIS'95, Chicago, IL, 9-12 October 1995. Ed.: T. Kinney

0.003790876 = product of:
  0.02653613 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=7968,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 7968, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7968)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=7968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 7968, 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=7968)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

One in a series of studies on the selection of search terms during an online search involving users and intermediaries in real online interactive situations. Considers: during what stage of the search process were search terms from different sources selected?; how were the search terms selected at different stages of the search process connected with retrieval of relevant answers as judges by users?; and in what sequences were the search terms selected, in respect to their sources. Sequences of selected search terms were analyzed to describe the types and frequencies of changes that occur in such sequences. Results indicate that search term selection follows regular patterns in the dynamics of the search process. Discusses implications of findings

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Integrating technologies - converging professions: proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH, 24-28 October 1993. Ed.: S. Bonzi

0.0016307352 = product of:
  0.022830293 = sum of:
    0.022830293 = weight(_text_:information in 7433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022830293 = score(doc=7433,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.43886948 = fieldWeight in 7433, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7433)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Information science is beginning to explore feedback as a key concept within information seeking and retrieving methods. Feedback has been a fundamental element in mmany cybernetic and social models. Gives an overview of feedback within the cybernetics and social frameworks. Compares these feedback concepts with the interactive feedback concept evolving within the framework of information seeking and retrieving, based on their conceptualization of the feedback loop and notion of information

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

Source

Global complexity: information, chaos and control. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, ASIS'96, Baltimore, Maryland, 21-24 Oct 1996. Ed.: S. Hardin

0.0014413799 = product of:
  0.020179318 = sum of:
    0.020179318 = weight(_text_:information in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020179318 = score(doc=282,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.38790947 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper reports findings from Phase I of the Wynnewood Study - a major project investigating the information-seeking and information needs of lowincome African-American households in the Wynnewood Project in Dallas, Texas. The Parks at Wynnewood is a residential housing development at which the University of North Texas (UNT) is currently conducting the Healthy Neighbourhoods urban revitalization project. This study is also part of the second phase of a major UNT project that is investigating the community service needs of the Wynnewood residents. During this needs assessment all Wynnewood households were interviewed using an extensive twelve-page questionnaire, including a number of questions on their information needs and information-seeking behaviour. The results of the survey provide data bearing on the development of an information resource center and an information literacy programme for Wynnewood community residents. A model of resident's information environment is presented. The study of information-seeking and information needs, also known as nonwork information-seeking or citizen information-seeking, is an important and emerging area of interdisciplinary information science research. More specifically, this study is providing important data on the everyday life information needs and seeking behaviours of low-income African Americans households.

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

0.0014268934 = product of:
  0.019976506 = sum of:
    0.019976506 = weight(_text_:information in 204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019976506 = score(doc=204,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 204, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=204)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Feedback has been a fundamental element in many cybernetic and social models. Information science is also exploring feedback as a key concept within information seeking and retrieving models. This article first presents an overview of the feedback concepts within the frameworks and models of cybernetics and the social sciences. The article then proposes that an enhanced feedback concept is developing within the framework and models of information seeking and retrieving, and the development of a cognitive viewpoint of information, illuminating the information seeking and retrieving context. The three feedback frameworks and concepts (cybernetic, social, and interaction) are then compared based on their conceptualization of the feedback loop and notion of information

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.8, S.728-740