Jianping Liu
ABSTRACT
Is there a stable cognitive structure of scientific data retrieval process? Based on the theory and method of user relevance research, this study explores the cognitive characteristics of user scientific data query and retrieval. The semi-structured interview method used to collect relevant data, and the content analysis method used to encode and analyze the cognitive process of users' scientific data query and retrieval. The results show that (1) users scientific data relevance judgment not only depend on topicality, but also use accessibility, quality, authority and usefulness. (2) There are 7 combination patterns for the use of user's scientific data relevance criteria, and (3) different patterns correspond to different user relevance types and different user information need states. These 7 criteria usage patterns reveal the cognitive enhancement of user scientific data relevance judgment. The research results have a great inspiration for the development of interactive scientific data retrieval system based on user cognitive enhancement characteristics.
- Stevens H (2016). Big data, little data, no data: scholarship in the networked world by christine l. borgman (review). Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(3), 751--753.Google Scholar
- Takeuchi S, Sugiura K, Akahoshi Y and Zettsu K (2017). Spatio-temporal pseudo relevance feedback for scientific data retrieval. Ieej Transactions on Electrical & Electronic Engineering, 12.Google Scholar
- Devarakonda R, Palanisamy G and Green J (2010). Digitizing scientific data and data retrieval techniques. Mathematics, abs/1010.3983.Google Scholar
- Wang Yong (2016). The development status and challenge in the big data era. Gansu Agriculture, 4, 21--24. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Cosijn E and Ingwersen P (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36, 533--550.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Borlund P (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 913--925.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hjørland B (2002). Domain analysis in information science: eleven approaches - traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422--462.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barry C L (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 149--159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wang P, and Soergel D (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project: Study I. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2), 115--133.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cool C, BelkinN J and Kantor P B (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting (pp. 77--84). Medford, NJ: LearnedInformation.Google Scholar
- Choi Y and Rasmussen E M (2002). Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in american history. Information Processing & Management, 38(5), 695--726.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laplante A (2010). Users' relevance criteria in music retrieval in everyday life: an exploratory study. International symposium/conference on music information retrieval.Google Scholar
- Barry C and Schamber L (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34, 219--236.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Greisdorf H F (2000). Relevance Thresholds: A Conjunctive/Disjunctive Model of End-User Cognition as an Evaluative Process. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas).Google Scholar
- Leech B L (2002). Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews. PS Political Science & Politics, 35(04), 665--668.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Downewamboldt B (2015). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Issues in Health Care of Women, 13(3), 313--321.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bazeley P (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. (p 6--15) London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Taylor R S (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College & Research Libraries.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- The Cognitive Enhancement Process of Scientific Data Retrieval
Recommendations
User's Scientific Data Retrieval Behavior Study Based on the Model of TPB
CSAE '19: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Application EngineeringTheory of Planned Behavior (TPB) can explain the user's behavior process. Whether user's scientific data retrieval behavior can explained by TPB model become the focus of this research. Data analyzed based on questionnaires and structural equation ...
Scientific Data Relevance Criteria Classification and Usage
CSAE '18: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Application EngineeringIn1 the big data era, scientific data plays a crucial role in scientific research. Data sharing, retrieval and usage has become an inevitable trend. We study how the users of scientific data select relevant data from the data sharing platform. The study ...
User relevance criteria choices and the information search process
Relevance judgments occur within an information search process, where time, context and situation can impact the judgments. The determination of relevance is dependent on a number of factors and variables which include the criteria used to determine ...
Comments