Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026694648 = product of:
  0.16016789 = sum of:
    0.16016789 = weight(_text_:960 in 1819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16016789 = score(doc=1819,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3350932 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.652365 = idf(docFreq=20, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.4779801 = fieldWeight in 1819, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.652365 = idf(docFreq=20, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1819)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.943-960

0.008086229 = product of:
  0.04851737 = sum of:
    0.04851737 = sum of:
      0.022281477 = weight(_text_:4 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022281477 = score(doc=667,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.21200769 = fieldWeight in 667, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=667)
      0.026235892 = weight(_text_:22 in 667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026235892 = score(doc=667,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 667, 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=667)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The article reports the findings of a content analysis study of 16 student-group proposals for a grade eight history project. The students listed their topic and thesis in the proposal, and information in support of their thesis. The study's focus is this topic-to-thesis transition. The study's conceptual framework is Kuhlthau's six stage ISP Model's transition from exploring information in Stage 3 to formulating a focus or personal perspective on the assignment topic in Stage 4. Our study coding scheme identifies elements of the students' implicit knowledge in the 16 proposals. To validate implicit knowledge as a predictor of successful student performance, implicit knowledge was coded, scored, and then the correlation coefficient was established between the score and the students' instructors' marks. In Part 2 of the study we found strong and significant association between the McGill coding scores and the instructors' marks for the 16 proposals. This study is a first step in identifying, operationalizing, and testing user-centered implicit knowledge elements for future implementation in interactive information systems designed for middle school students researching a thesis-objective history assignment.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:41:17

0.005598837 = product of:
  0.03359302 = sum of:
    0.03359302 = sum of:
      0.012604306 = weight(_text_:4 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012604306 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.11992966 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
      0.020988714 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020988714 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 642, 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=642)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) research has developed considerably since the 1950's to include consideration of more cognitive, interactive and iterative processes during the interaction between humans and IR or Web systems (Ingwersen, 1992, 1996). Interactive search sessions by humans with IR systems have been depicted as interactive IR models (Saracevic, 1997). Human-IR system interaction is also modeled as taking place within the context of broader human information behavior (HIB) processes (Spink et al., 2002). Research into the human or cognitive (user modeling) aspects of IR is a growing body of research on user interactivity, task performance and measures for observing user interactivity. The task context and situational characteristics of users' searches and evaluation have also been identified as key elements in a user's interaction with an IR system (Cool and Spink, 2002; Vakkari, 2003). Major theorized interactive IR models have been proposed relating to the single search episode, including Ingwersen's (1992,1996) Cognitive Model of IR Interaction, Belkin et al.'s (1995) Episodic Interaction Model, and Saracevic's (1996,1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In this chapter we examine Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction and extend the model within the framework of cognitive IR (CIR) to depict CIR as a multitasking process. This chapter provides a new direction for CIR research by conceptualizing IR with a multitasking context. The next section of the chapter defines the concept of multitasking in the cognitive sciences and Section 3 discusses the emerging understanding of multitasking information behavior. In Section 4, cognitive IR is depicted within a multitasking framework using Saracevic's (1996, 1997) Stratified Model of IR Interaction. In Section 5, we link information searching and seeking models together, via Saracevic's Stratified Model of IR Interaction, but starting with a unitask model of HIB. We begin to model multitasking in cognitive IR in Section 6. In Sections 7 and 8, we increase the complexity of our developing multitasking model of cognitive IR by adding coordinating mechanisms, including feedback loops. Finally, in Section 9, we conclude the chapter and indicate future directions for further research.

Date

19. 1.2007 12:55:22

0.003907314 = product of:
  0.023443883 = sum of:
    0.023443883 = weight(_text_:r in 4814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023443883 = score(doc=4814,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 4814, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4814)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The authors present a study of the real-life information needs of 59 McGill University undergraduates researching essay topics for either a history or psychology course, interviewed just after they had selected their essay topic. The interview's purpose was to transform the undergraduate's query from general topic terms, based an vague conceptions of their essay topic, to an information need-based query. To chart the transformation, the authors investigate N. J. Belkin, R. N. Oddy, and H. M. Brooks' Anomalous States of Knowledge (ASK) hypothesis (1982a, 1982b), which links the user's ASK to a relevant document set via a common code based an structural facets. In the present study an interoperable structural code based an eight essay styles is created, then notions of structural facets compatible with a highimpact essay structure are presented. The important findings of the study are: (a) the undergraduates' topic statements and terms derived from it do not constitute an effective information need statement because for most of the subjects in the study the topic terms conformed to a low-impact essay style; (b) essay style is an effective interoperable structural code for charting the evolution of the undergraduate's knowledge state from ASK to partial resolution of the ASK in an information need statement.

0.0026235892 = product of:
  0.015741535 = sum of:
    0.015741535 = product of:
      0.03148307 = sum of:
        0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03148307 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3675, 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=3675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 5.1999 14:51:49

0.001838128 = product of:
  0.011028768 = sum of:
    0.011028768 = product of:
      0.022057535 = sum of:
        0.022057535 = weight(_text_:4 in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022057535 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.2098769 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 44(1993) no.4, S.204-211

0.001838128 = product of:
  0.011028768 = sum of:
    0.011028768 = product of:
      0.022057535 = sum of:
        0.022057535 = weight(_text_:4 in 627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022057535 = score(doc=627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.2098769 = fieldWeight in 627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

RQ. 36(1997) no.4, S.562-568

0.0013129486 = product of:
  0.007877692 = sum of:
    0.007877692 = product of:
      0.015755383 = sum of:
        0.015755383 = weight(_text_:4 in 4588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015755383 = score(doc=4588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.14991207 = fieldWeight in 4588, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

4. 4.2000 13:29:38

0.0013129486 = product of:
  0.007877692 = sum of:
    0.007877692 = product of:
      0.015755383 = sum of:
        0.015755383 = weight(_text_:4 in 2575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015755383 = score(doc=2575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.14991207 = fieldWeight in 2575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

When accessing an information retrieval system, it has long been said that undergraduates who are in an exploratory stage of researching their essay topic should use a high recall search strategy; what prevents them from doing so is the information overload factor associated with showing the undergraduate a long list of citations. One method of overcoming information overload is summarizing and visualizing the citation list. This paper examines five summarization and visualization schemes for presenting information retrieval (IR) citation output, then discusses whether these schemes are appropriate for undergraduates and other domain novice users. We ask and answer four questions: (1) What is the message these schemes try to communicate and (2) is this message appropriate for domain novice users like undergraduates? (3) How do these schemes communicate their message and (4) is how they communicate the message appropriate for a domain novice? We conclude that (i) the most appropriate message for information space visualizations for domain novice users is associative thinking, and (ii) the message should be communicated with a standardized look that remains relatively constant over time so that the shape and form of the visualization can become familiar and thus useful to students as they navigate their way through the information space produced by a high recall search strategy.

0.0013129486 = product of:
  0.007877692 = sum of:
    0.007877692 = product of:
      0.015755383 = sum of:
        0.015755383 = weight(_text_:4 in 3469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015755383 = score(doc=3469,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.14991207 = fieldWeight in 3469, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3469)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

4. 6.2005 12:04:17

0.0010503589 = product of:
  0.006302153 = sum of:
    0.006302153 = product of:
      0.012604306 = sum of:
        0.012604306 = weight(_text_:4 in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012604306 = score(doc=36,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.11992966 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

There have been various approaches to conceptualizing interactive information retrieval (IR), which can be generally divided into system and user approaches (Hearst, 1999; cf. also Spink, 1997). Both system and user approaches define user-system interaction in terms of the system and the user reacting to the actions or behaviors of the other: the system reacts to the user's input; the user to the output of the system (Spink, 1997). In system approach models of the interaction, e.g., Moran (1981), "[T]he user initiates an action or operation and the system responds in some way which in turn leads the user to initiate another action and so on" (Beaulieu, 2000, p. 433). In its purest form, the system approach models the user as a reactive part of the interaction, with the system taking the lead (Bates, 1990). User approaches, on the other hand, in their purest form wish to insert a model of the user in all its socio-cognitive dimensions, to the extent that system designers consider such approaches impractical (Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005, Chap. 7, this volume). The cognitive approach to IR interaction attempts to overcome this divide (Ruthven, 2005, Chap. 4, this volume; Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005 Chap. 7, this volume) by representing the cognitive elements of both system designers and the user in the interaction model (Larsen and Ingwersen, 2005 Chap. 3, this volume). There are cognitive approach researchers meeting in a central ground from both the system and user side. On the system side, are computer scientists employing cognitive research to design more effective IR systems from the point of view of the user's task (Nathan, 1990; Fischer, Henninger, and Redmiles, 1991; O'Day and Jeffries, 1993; Russell et al., 1993; Kitajima and Polson, 1996; Terwilliger and Polson, 1997). On the user side are cognitive approach researchers applying methods, concepts and models from psychology to design systems that are more in tune with how users acquire information (e.g., Belkin, 1980; Ford (2005, Chap. 5, this volume); Ingwersen (Larsen and Ingwersen, 2005, Chap. 3, this volume); Saracevic, 1996; Vakkari (Vakkari and Jarvelin, 2005, Chap. 7, this volume)).

7.8776915E-4 = product of:
  0.004726615 = sum of:
    0.004726615 = product of:
      0.00945323 = sum of:
        0.00945323 = weight(_text_:4 in 480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00945323 = score(doc=480,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.08994724 = fieldWeight in 480, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=480)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Isbn

978-3-319-92456-4