Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × author_ss:"Spink, A."
  1. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Search term selection during mediated online searching (1993) 0.03 
    0.027501125 = product of:
  0.08250337 = sum of:
    0.08250337 = product of:
      0.12375505 = sum of:
        0.07269186 = weight(_text_:online in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07269186 = score(doc=7824,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 7824, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7824)
        0.05106319 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05106319 = score(doc=7824,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
    Source
    Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting 1993, New York, 4-6 May 1993. Ed.: M.E. Williams
  2. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Where do the search terms come from? (1992) 0.03 
    0.026022632 = product of:
  0.07806789 = sum of:
    0.07806789 = product of:
      0.11710183 = sum of:
        0.058743894 = weight(_text_:online in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058743894 = score(doc=4032,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 4032, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4032)
        0.058357935 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058357935 = score(doc=4032,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
    Source
    13th National Online Meeting. Ed.: M.E. Williams
  3. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Sources and use of search terms in online searching (1992) 0.02 
    0.0227698 = product of:
  0.0683094 = sum of:
    0.0683094 = product of:
      0.102464095 = sum of:
        0.051400907 = weight(_text_:online in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051400907 = score(doc=4523,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33194235 = fieldWeight in 4523, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4523)
        0.05106319 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05106319 = score(doc=4523,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  4. Kuhlthau, C.; Spink, A.; Cool, C.: Exploration into stages in the retrieval in the information search process in online information retrieval : communication between users and intermediaries (1992) 0.02 
    0.022199143 = product of:
  0.066597424 = sum of:
    0.066597424 = product of:
      0.09989613 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 4518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=4518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 4518, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4518)
        0.058357935 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058357935 = score(doc=4518,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  5. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Dynamics of search term selection during mediated online searching (1993) 0.02 
    0.018868595 = product of:
  0.056605786 = sum of:
    0.056605786 = product of:
      0.08490868 = sum of:
        0.053959712 = weight(_text_:online in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053959712 = score(doc=7968,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.34846687 = fieldWeight in 7968, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7968)
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=7968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  6. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.02 
    0.016094714 = product of:
  0.048284143 = sum of:
    0.048284143 = product of:
      0.072426215 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  7. Spink, A.; Cole, C.: ¬A multitasking framework for cognitive information retrieval (2005) 0.02 
    0.015314843 = product of:
  0.045944527 = sum of:
    0.045944527 = product of:
      0.06891679 = sum of:
        0.041265294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041265294 = score(doc=642,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 642, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=642)
        0.027651496 = weight(_text_:22 in 642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027651496 = score(doc=642,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
    Series
    The information retrieval series, vol. 19
    Source
    New directions in cognitive information retrieval. Eds.: A. Spink, C. Cole
  8. Spink, A.; Beatty, L.: Multiple search sessions by end-users of online catalogs and CD-ROM databases (1995) 0.01 
    0.013800584 = product of:
  0.04140175 = sum of:
    0.04140175 = product of:
      0.062102623 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=3877,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=3877,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  9. Spink, A.: ¬The effect of user characteristics on search outcome in mediated online searching (1993) 0.01 
    0.012211084 = product of:
  0.036633253 = sum of:
    0.036633253 = product of:
      0.10989976 = sum of:
        0.10989976 = weight(_text_:online in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10989976 = score(doc=6739,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.7097226 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The relationship between user characteristics and the outcome of an online search is a growing area of investigation. Reports results of a study which examined use characteristics during mediated online searching in an academic environment, which related to online search outcome. Results of the study indicate that the academic status of the users and their experience of a prior online search on their information problem was significantly related to the online search outcome
    Source
    Online and CD-ROM review. 17(1993) no.5, S.275-278
  10. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Human-computer interaction in information retrieval : nature and manifestations of feedback (1998) 0.01 
    0.010614499 = product of:
  0.0318435 = sum of:
    0.0318435 = product of:
      0.09553049 = sum of:
        0.09553049 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09553049 = score(doc=3763,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  11. Spink, A.: Study of interactive feedback during mediated information retrieval (1997) 0.01 
    0.010252445 = product of:
  0.030757334 = sum of:
    0.030757334 = product of:
      0.092272 = sum of:
        0.092272 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092272 = score(doc=158,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  12. Spink, A.; Greisdorf, H.: Partial relevance judgements and changes in users information problems during online searching (1997) 0.01 
    0.00979065 = product of:
  0.029371947 = sum of:
    0.029371947 = product of:
      0.08811584 = sum of:
        0.08811584 = weight(_text_:online in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08811584 = score(doc=316,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.569044 = fieldWeight in 316, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=316)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Proceedings of the 18th National Online Meeting 1997, New York, 13.-15.5.1997. Ed.: M.E. Williams
  13. Spink, A.; Greisdorf, H.: Users' partial relevance judgements during online searching (1997) 0.01 
    0.008076874 = product of:
  0.02423062 = sum of:
    0.02423062 = product of:
      0.07269186 = sum of:
        0.07269186 = weight(_text_:online in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07269186 = score(doc=623,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 623, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=623)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Reports results of research to examine users conducting their initial online search on a particular information problem. Findings from 3 separate studies of relevance judgements by 44 initial search users were examined, including 2 studies of 13 end users and a study of 18 user engaged in mediated online searches. Number of items was judged on the scale 'relevant', 'patially relevant' and 'not rlevant'. Results suggest that: a relationship exists between partially rlevant items retrieved anch changes in the users' information problem or question during an information seeking process; partial relevance judgements play an important role for users in the early stages of seeking information on a particular information problem; and 'highly' relevant items may or may not be the only items useful at the early stages of users' information seeking processes
    Source
    Online and CD-ROM review. 21(1997) no.5, S.271-280
  14. Spink, A.; Goodrum, A.; Robins, D.: Elicitation behavior during mediated information retrieval (1998) 0.01 
    0.008023808 = product of:
  0.024071421 = sum of:
    0.024071421 = product of:
      0.07221426 = sum of:
        0.07221426 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07221426 = score(doc=3265,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  15. Spink, A.: Term relevance feedback and mediated database searching : implications for information retrieval practice and systems design (1995) 0.01 
    0.007689334 = product of:
  0.023068001 = sum of:
    0.023068001 = product of:
      0.069204 = sum of:
        0.069204 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069204 = score(doc=1756,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  16. Spink, A.; Goodrum, A.; Robins, D.: Search intermediary elicitations during mediated online searching (1995) 0.01 
    0.006994778 = product of:
  0.020984333 = sum of:
    0.020984333 = product of:
      0.062952995 = sum of:
        0.062952995 = weight(_text_:online in 3872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062952995 = score(doc=3872,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.4065447 = fieldWeight in 3872, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3872)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Investigates search intermediary elicitations during mediated online searching. A study of 40 online reference interviews involving 1.557 search intermediary elicitation, found 15 different types of search intermediary elicitation to users. The elicitation purpose included search terms and strategies, database selection, relevance of retrieved items, users' knowledge and previous information seeking. Analysis of the patterns in the types and sequencing of elicitation showed significant strings of multiple elicitation regarding search terms and strategies, and relevance judgements. Discusses the implications of the findings for training search intermediaries and the design of interfaces eliciting information from end users
  17. Spink, A.; Saracevic, T.: Interaction in information retrieval : selection and effectiveness of search terms (1997) 0.01 
    0.006877549 = product of:
  0.020632647 = sum of:
    0.020632647 = product of:
      0.06189794 = sum of:
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=206,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  18. Cool, C.; Spink, A.: Issues of context in information retrieval (IR) : an introduction to the special issue (2002) 0.01 
    0.006877549 = product of:
  0.020632647 = sum of:
    0.020632647 = product of:
      0.06189794 = sum of:
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=2587,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2587, 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=2587)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The subject of context has received a great deal of attention in the information retrieval (IR) literature over the past decade, primarily in studies of information seeking and IR interactions. Recently, attention to context in IR has expanded to address new problems in new environments. In this paper we outline five overlapping dimensions of context which we believe to be important constituent elements and we discuss how they are related to different issues in IR research. The papers in this special issue are summarized with respect to how they represent work that is being conducted within these dimensions of context. We conclude with future areas of research which are needed in order to fully understand the multidimensional nature of context in IR.
    Footnote
    Einführung in ein Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  19. Spink, A.; Losee, R.M.: Feedback in information retrieval (1996) 0.01 
    0.0064842156 = product of:
  0.019452646 = sum of:
    0.019452646 = product of:
      0.058357935 = sum of:
        0.058357935 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058357935 = score(doc=7441,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  20. Spink, A.; Goodrum, A.: ¬A study of search intermediary working notes : implications for IR system design (1996) 0.01 
    0.005673688 = product of:
  0.017021064 = sum of:
    0.017021064 = product of:
      0.05106319 = sum of:
        0.05106319 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05106319 = score(doc=6981,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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

Authors

Years

Themes