Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017613377 = product of:
  0.06164682 = sum of:
    0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029588435 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
    0.008029819 = product of:
      0.024089456 = sum of:
        0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024089456 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.557-570

0.017284267 = product of:
  0.08065991 = sum of:
    0.046129078 = weight(_text_:web in 2385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046129078 = score(doc=2385,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 2385, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2385)
    0.013347364 = weight(_text_:information in 2385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013347364 = score(doc=2385,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 2385, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2385)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=2385,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2385, 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=2385)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This study explored undergraduate students' mental models of the Web as an information retrieval system. Mental models play an important role in people's interaction with information systems. Better understanding of people's mental models could inspire better interface design and user instruction. Multiple data-collection methods, including questionnaire, semistructured interview, drawing, and participant observation, were used to elicit students' mental models of the Web from different perspectives, though only data from interviews and drawing descriptions are reported in this article. Content analysis of the transcripts showed that students had utilitarian rather than structural mental models of the Web. The majority of participants saw the Web as a huge information resource where everything can be found rather than an infrastructure consisting of hardware and computer applications. Students had different mental models of how information is organized on the Web, and the models varied in correctness and complexity. Students' mental models of search on the Web were illustrated from three points of view: avenues of getting information, understanding of search engines' working mechanisms, and search tactics. The research results suggest that there are mainly three sources contributing to the construction of mental models: personal observation, communication with others, and class instruction. In addition to structural and functional aspects, mental models have an emotional dimension.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.13, S.2087-2098

0.0054291994 = product of:
  0.038004395 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 2218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=2218,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2218, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2218)
    0.013347364 = weight(_text_:information in 2218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013347364 = score(doc=2218,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 2218, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2218)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The quality of online health information for consumers has been a critical issue that concerns all stakeholders in healthcare. To gain an understanding of how quality is evaluated, this systematic review examined 165 articles in which researchers evaluated the quality of consumer-oriented health information on the web against predefined criteria. It was found that studies typically evaluated quality in relation to the substance and formality of content, as well as to the design of technological platforms. Attention to design, particularly interactivity, privacy, and social and cultural appropriateness is on the rise, which suggests the permeation of a user-centered perspective into the evaluation of health information systems, and a growing recognition of the need to study these systems from a social-technical perspective. Researchers used many preexisting instruments to facilitate evaluation of the formality of content; however, only a few were used in multiple studies, and their validity was questioned. The quality of content (i.e., accuracy and completeness) was always evaluated using proprietary instruments constructed based on medical guidelines or textbooks. The evaluation results revealed that the quality of health information varied across medical domains and across websites, and that the overall quality remained problematic. Future research is needed to examine the quality of user-generated content and to explore opportunities offered by emerging new media that can facilitate the consumer evaluation of health information.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2071-2084

0.0026001623 = product of:
  0.018201135 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.009463232 = product of:
      0.028389696 = sum of:
        0.028389696 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028389696 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

Source

Journal of information science. 24(1998) no.4, S.241-254

8.737902E-4 = product of:
  0.012233062 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=5775,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5775, 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=5775)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Twitter is utilized by many, including professional businesses and organizations; however, there are very few studies on how other entities interact with these organizations in the Twittersphere. This article presents a study that investigates tweets related to 5 major library and information science (LIS) professional organizations in the United States. This study applies a systematic tweets analysis framework, including descriptive analytics, network analytics, and co-word analysis of hashtags. The findings shed light on user engagement with LIS professional organizations and the trending discussion topics on Twitter, which is valuable for enabling more successful social media use and greater influence.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.4, S.491-496

7.2068995E-4 = product of:
  0.010089659 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 1089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=1089,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1089, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1089)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The extant literature demonstrates that the age-related digital divide prevents older adults from enhancing their quality of life. To bridge this gap and promote active aging, this study explores the interplay between social networks and older adults' use of information and communication technology (ICT). Using an action-oriented field research approach, we offered technical help (29 help sessions) to older adult participants recruited from western China. Then, we conducted content analysis to examine the obtained video, audio, and text data. Our results show that, first, different types of social networks significantly influence older adults' ICT use in terms of digital skills, engagement, and attitudes; however, these effects vary from person to person. In particular, our results highlight the crucial role of a stable and long-term supportive social network in learning and mastering ICT for older residents. Second, technical help facilitates the building and reinforcing of such a social network for the participants. Our study has strong implications in that policymakers can foster the digital inclusion of older people through supportive social networks.

Content

Beitrag in: JASIST special issue on ICT4D and intersections with the information field. Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24700.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.12, S.1437-1448

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4294, 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=4294)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.1, S.57-68

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 5212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=5212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5212)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.8, S.628-654