MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1595213066

Information Need: A Theory Connecting Information Search to Knowledge Formation

2012· article· en· W1595213066 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Margaret Sampson

Notice bibliographique

RevuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInformation scienceProcess (computing)PsychologyInformation behaviorSociologyComputer scienceEpistemologyCognitive scienceLibrary science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Cole, Charles. Information Need: A Theory Connecting Information Search to Knowledge Formation. Medford, New Jersey: Published on behalf of the American Society for Information Science and Technology by Information Today, Inc, 2012. Print: 240 pp. 59.50 USD. ISBN-13 978-1-57387-429-8.As someone who had been taught the art of the reference interview by Cole himself, I assumed that this book would be targeted at reference librarians; however, Cole makes it clear that his target audience is system designers. Still, the book is thought-provoking and its findings will influence my work as a librarian who supports health science researchers.Cole's Information Need addresses the underlying mental processes involved as people move from the first unspoken disquiet of an emerging information need through to the early steps of exploration and, ultimately, to the resolution of the need through knowledge formation. In the course of his study, Cole builds on the rich legacy of theorists in the fields of information science, cognitive psychology and evolutionary psychology.His main thesis is that the information need remains constant throughout the search process. According to Cole, the underlying need is a fixed psychological entity, although the user's sense of the need and the behaviours that are the external manifestation of that need will change over time. Indeed, Cole argues that information need is one of the things that make us truly human. Drawing from evolutionary psychology (which focuses on questions such as does a person recognize a gap or change in the social or physical environment which sets offthe process leading to adaptation?), Cole argues that humans distinguished themselves from Neanderthals in part by developing the neurological substrates for increasingly abstract thinking, including information need, and this conferred an evolutionary advantage.This book provides an accessible refresher on some of the major theoretical thinkers in the field: Shannon's theory of communication of information (c. 1949), Taylor's question negotiation (c. 1968), Bates' berry picking (c. 1989), Kulthau's six stages of the information search process (c. 1991) and Dervin's sense making (c. 1992). New to me, Cole also covered Minksy's frame theory (c. 1975) and Donald's evolutionary psychology on the four cultures of human thinking and reasoning (c. 1991). For the most part, Cole's presentation of theoretical material is quite readable, although I did resort to Minsky's original work on frame theory and found it easier to understand than Cole's description of it.As far as the framework of the book is concerned, Part I consists of seven chapters, the first six of which lay the groundwork for Chapter Seven in which the theory of information need is presented. Part II addresses how the information need works at various stages of inquiry. By way of illustration, Cole very successfully uses examples drawn from the experiences of graduate students as they come to terms with their thesis topics. Part III addresses the application of the theory of information need to information system design. And, finally, Part IV is a particularly strong final chapter that pulls together the many elements explored throughout the book into a succinct, yet focused and fully instantiated understanding of information need, to use Cole's language. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,942
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0030,234
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,350
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchMême sujetInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorTravaux en français237 207