Cited by 464Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorUsability and User Interface DesignPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

Information foraging in information access environments

Pirolli, Peter, Card, Stuart·1995·Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '95

Abstract

Article Free Access Share on Information foraging in information access environments Authors: Peter Pirolli Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CAView Profile , Stuart Card Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CAView Profile Authors Info & Claims CHI '95: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsMay 1995 Pages 51–58https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223911Published:01 May 1995Publication History 231citation4,388DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations231Total Downloads4,388Last 12 Months767Last 6 weeks210 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteView all FormatsPDF

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/223904.223911

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In previous studies, some structures may have performed better than others because they had stronger scent for the target at the top levels of the hierarchy.

    “Therefore, in these studies, some structures may have performed better than others because they had stronger scent for the target at the top levels of the hierarchy (i.e., their category labels were more distinctive at the top level).”
  • According to Information Foraging Theory, developers make navigation decisions by predicting the value a navigation will bring and the cost they will incur, treating foraging as an optimization problem to maximize expected value per expected cost.

    “According to IFT, developers make their navigation decisions by predicting the value a navigation will bring and the cost they will incur if they take that navigation.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pirolli, P., & Card, S.
Affiliations
Palo Alto Research Center (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '95
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
1995
Pages
51-58
OpenAlex
W2028770149
Cited by
464
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 15
FWCI
12.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
information foraging, access to information, information seeking, browsing, information retrieval, user behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review