Users’ perceptions of the Web as revealed by transaction log analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When information seekers use an information retrieval system their strategy is based, at least in part, on the perceptions they have formed about that environment. A random sample was gathered of more than 2,000 actual search queries submitted by users to one Web search engine, WebCrawler, in two separate capture sessions. The results suggest that a high proportion of users do not employ advanced search features, and those who do frequently misunderstand them. Furthermore, many users seem to have formed a model of the Web that imbues it with the intelligence found in a reference librarian, for example, but not a retrieval system. The linguistic structure of many queries resembles a typical human‐human communication model that is unlikely to produce satisfactory results in a human‐computer communication environment such as that offered currently by the Web. Design of more intuitive systems is dependent upon a more complete understanding of user behaviour at the intellectual and emotional as well as the technical levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it