Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.043388486 = product of:
  0.07231414 = sum of:
    0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 1797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032278713 = score(doc=1797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 1797, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1797)
    0.032284863 = weight(_text_:system in 1797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032284863 = score(doc=1797,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24108742 = fieldWeight in 1797, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1797)
    0.0077505717 = product of:
      0.023251714 = sum of:
        0.023251714 = weight(_text_:29 in 1797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023251714 = score(doc=1797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 1797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1797)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The authors introduce two semantics-based navigation applications that facilitate information-seeking activities in internal link-based web sites in Wikipedia. These applications aim to help users find concepts within a topic and related articles on a given topic quickly and then gain topical knowledge from internal link-based encyclopedia web sites. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The WNavis application consists of three information visualization (IV) tools which are a topic network, a hierarchy topic tree and summaries for topics. The WikiMap application consists of a topic network. The goal of the topic network and topic tree tools is to help users to find the major concepts of a topic and identify relationships between these major concepts easily. In addition, in order to locate specific information and enable users to explore and read topic-related articles quickly, the topic tree and summaries for topics tools support users to gain topical knowledge quickly. The authors then apply the k-clique of cohesive indicator to analyze the sub topics of the seed query and find out the best clustering results via the cosine measure. The authors utilize four metrics, which are correctness, time cost, usage behaviors, and satisfaction, to evaluate the three interfaces. These metrics measure both the outputs and outcomes of applications. As a baseline system for evaluation the authors used a traditional Wikipedia interface. For the evaluation, the authors used an experimental user study with 30 participants.
Findings - The results indicate that both WikiMap and WNavis supported users to identify concepts and their relations better compared to the baseline. In topical tasks WNavis over performed both WikiMap and the baseline system. Although there were no time differences in finding concepts or answering topical questions, the test systems provided users with a greater gain per time unit. The users of WNavis leaned on the hierarchy tree instead of other tools, whereas WikiMap users used the topic map. Research limitations/implications - The findings have implications for the design of IR support tools in knowledge-intensive web sites that help users to explore topics and concepts. Originality/value - The authors explored to what extent the use of each IV support tool contributed to successful exploration of topics in search tasks. The authors propose extended task-based evaluation measures to understand how each application provides useful context for users to accomplish the tasks and attain the search goals. That is, the authors not only evaluate the output of the search results, e.g. the number of relevant items retrieved, but also the outcome provided by the system for assisting users to attain the search goal.

Date

8. 4.2015 16:20:29

0.029319597 = product of:
  0.07329899 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=3030,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate fiction readers' interest criteria when selecting novels in library catalogs for various search tasks. Design/methodology/approach - The data of the book selection behavior from 80 genuine fiction readers were collected using recorded interviews and conversations. The data were qualitatively analyzed. Reuter's categorization of the components of aesthetic relevance has contributed to the construction of interest dimensions. Findings - A five-dimension categorization of interest criteria is presented based on fiction readers' interpretations of the influential factors in fiction book selection in different search tasks. The findings revealed that readers apply the identified interest criteria in a flexible and multiphase way depending to the search task and the system used. The findings showed a context-related pattern in readers' fiction book selections. A combination of readers' search capacities, "behind the eyes" knowledge, affective factors and a well-functioning interaction with a system used results in a successful book selection. Originality/value - A five-dimension categorization of adult fiction readers' interest criteria was created based on their search behaviors in library catalogs. The results provide a systematic step toward a comprehensive understanding of readers' fiction book selection in digital environments.

0.018259598 = product of:
  0.09129799 = sum of:
    0.09129799 = weight(_text_:context in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09129799 = score(doc=302,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.51808125 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information seeking in context: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 14-16 August 1996, Tampere, Finland. Ed.: P. Vakkari u.a

0.013160261 = product of:
  0.032900654 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1073)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=1073,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1073, 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=1073)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The study analyses how students' growing understanding of the topic and search experience were related to their choice of search tactics and terms while preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. In addition to that, the findings of the study are used to test Vakkari's (2001) theory of task-based IR. The research subjects were 22 students of psychology attending a seminar for preparing the proposal. They made a search for their task in PsychINFO database at the beginning and end of the seminar. Data were collected in several ways. A pre- and post-search interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded as were the transaction logs. The results show that search experience was slightly related to the change of facets. Although the students' vocabulary of the topic grew generating an increased use of specific terms between the sessions, their use of search tactics and operators remained fairly constant. There was no correlation between the terms and tactics used and the total number of useful references found. By comparing these results with the findings of relevant earlier studies the conclusion was drawn that domain knowledge has an impact on searching assuming that users have a sufficient command of the system used. This implies that the tested theory of task-based IR is valid on condition that the searchers are experienced. It is suggested that the theory should be enriched by including search experience in its scope.

0.0129114855 = product of:
  0.064557426 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=643,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) is a research area both within Computer Science and Information Science. It has by and large two communities: a Computer Science oriented experimental approach and a user-oriented Information Science approach with a Social Science background. The communities hold a critical stance towards each other (e.g., Ingwersen, 1996), the latter suspecting the realism of the former, and the former suspecting the usefulness of the latter. Within Information Science the study of information seeking (IS) also has a Social Science background. There is a lot of research in each of these particular areas of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R). However, the three communities do not really communicate with each other. Why is this, and could the relationships be otherwise? Do the communities in fact belong together? Or perhaps each community is better off forgetting about the existence of the other two? We feel that the relationships between the research areas have not been properly analyzed. One way to analyze the relationships is to examine what each research area is trying to find out: which phenomena are being explained and how. We believe that IS&R research would benefit from being analytic about its frameworks, models and theories, not just at the level of meta-theories, but also much more concretely at the level of study designs. Over the years there have been calls for more context in the study of IS&R. Work tasks as well as cultural activities/interests have been proposed as the proper context for information access. For example, Wersig (1973) conceptualized information needs from the tasks perspective. He argued that in order to learn about information needs and seeking, one needs to take into account the whole active professional role of the individuals being investigated. Byström and Järvelin (1995) analysed IS processes in the light of tasks of varying complexity. Ingwersen (1996) discussed the role of tasks and their descriptions and problematic situations from a cognitive perspective on IR. Most recently, Vakkari (2003) reviewed task-based IR and Järvelin and Ingwersen (2004) proposed the extension of IS&R research toward the task context. Therefore there is much support to the task context, but how should it be applied in IS&R?

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 4288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=4288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4288)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The rationale for using information systems is to find information that helps us in our daily activities, be they tasks or interests. Systems are expected to support us in searching for and identifying useful information. Although the activities and tasks performed by humans generate information needs and searching, they have attracted little attention in studies of information searching. Such studies have concentrated an search tasks rather than the activities that trigger them. It is obvious that our understanding of information searching is only partial, if we are not able to connect aspects of searching to the related task. The expected contribution of information to the task is reflected in relevance assessments of the information items found, and in the search tactics and use of the system in general. Taking the task into account seems to be a necessary condition for understanding and explaining information searching, and, by extension, for effective systems design.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 4435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=4435,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 4435, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4435)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study explored how the expression of search facets and relevance feedback (RF) by users was related to search success in interactive and automatic query expansion in the course of the search process. Search success was measured both in the number of relevant documents retrieved, whether identified by users or not. Research design consisted of 26 users searching for four TREC topics in Okapi IR system, half of the searchers using interactive and half automatic query expansion based on RF. The search logs were recorded, and the users filled in questionnaires for each topic concerning various features of searching. The results showed that the exhaustivity of the query was the most significant predictor of search success. Interactive expansion led to better search success than automatic expansion if all retrieved relevant items were counted, but there was no difference between the methods if only those items recognised relevant by users were observed. The analysis showed that the difference was facilitated by the liberal relevance criterion used in TREC not favouring highly relevant documents in evaluation.

0.0054254006 = product of:
  0.027127001 = sum of:
    0.027127001 = product of:
      0.081381 = sum of:
        0.081381 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081381 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.129-144

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Research in information science aims to comprehend the facilitation of access to information for supporting purposeful action. The major themes to be addressed have been how information is organized for access, how it is retrieved from storage, and how it is sought out and used for various purposes. Two central research areas in the field are information retrieval (IR) and information seeking (IS) (Vakkari & Rochester, 1998). Although intuitively the fields seem to be overlapping, their research communities have been active in their own enclosures. Few researchers have visited the neighboring side. However, there are researchers (Bates, 1989; Belkin & Vickery, 1986; Belkin, 1993; Ellis, 1989; Ingwersen, 1992, 1996; Järvelin 1987; Kuhlthau, 1993; Marchionini, 1995; Saracevic & Kantor, 1988) who have stressed the need to connect results from both research traditions. IR can be seen as a part of a broader process of information seeking. By IS is understood a process of searching, obtaining and using information for a purpose (e.g., form a solution for a task) when a person does not have sufficient prior knowledge. By 1R is understood the use of an information system for obtaining relevant information for a purpose (e.g., a task). This implies that information systems are a specific means among other sources and channels for obtaining information.

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.

0.003727935 = product of:
  0.018639674 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=1891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this study is to explore to which extent searching by medical students in Medline produces information items useful for writing an essay measured by precision and relative recall as perceived by the students, the proportion of cited items, and their utilization on four dimensions of the essay writing task evaluated by external assessors. It also aims to study interrelations of search process and outcome. Design/methodology/approach - The study subjects were 42 third year medical students attending a class on Diagnostic and therapy. Searching in Medline was a part of their assignment of essay writing. The data consist of students' printed logs of Medline searches, students' assessments of the usefulness of the references retrieved, a questionnaire concerning the search process, and evaluation scores of the essays given by the teachers of the class. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for answering the research questions. Findings - The paper finds that precision and relative recall were not associated with evaluation scores in three of the four dimensions assessed. Some of the process variables were associated with precision and with assessment scores in two of the four dimensions assessed. Citing rate was negatively associated with recall. It seems that precision and recall are only weakly, if at all, associated to the use of information in the documents retrieved for writing the essay. Precision and relative recall are not associated to the way information in the retrieved items is used for performing the task. Users evidently look for a sufficient number of documents containing enough information for progressing in their task. Precision and recall are not sufficient measures in evaluating IR systems, but they have to be completed by other measures indicating the impact of the system on users' task performance. Originality/value - The paper provides useful information on students' information search process.

0.0027155904 = product of:
  0.013577952 = sum of:
    0.013577952 = product of:
      0.040733855 = sum of:
        0.040733855 = weight(_text_:22 in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040733855 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1682, 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=1682)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article focuses an analysing students' information needs in terms of conceptual understanding of the topic they propose to study and its consequences for the search process and outcome. The research subjects were 22 undergraduates of psychology attending a seminar for preparing a research proposal for a small empirical study. They were asked to make searches in the PsycINFO database for their task in the beginning and end of the seminar. A pre- and postsearch interview was conducted in both sessions. The students were asked to think aloud in the sessions. This was recorded, as were the transaction logs. The results show that during the preparation of research proposals different features of the students' conceptual structure were connected to the search success. Students' ability to cover their conceptual construct by query terms was the major feature affecting search success during the whole process. In the beginning also the number of concepts and the proportion of subconcepts in the construct contributed indirectly via search tactics to retrieving partly useful references. Students' ability to extract new query terms from retrieved items improved search results.

Date

19. 6.2003 17:22:33

0.0019202124 = product of:
  0.009601062 = sum of:
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 4573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=4573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4573, 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=4573)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9.12.2018 16:22:25

0.0019202124 = product of:
  0.009601062 = sum of:
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06