Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Chu, H."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011) 0.02
    0.02067415 = product of:
      0.0413483 = sum of:
        0.0413483 = sum of:
          0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010148063 = score(doc=4540,freq=18.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
                4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                  18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process. Findings - This study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment. Research limitations/implications - Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments. Practical implications - If multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short-term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions. Originality/value - This study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.
    Date
    12. 7.2011 18:29:22
    Type
    a
  2. Chu, H.: Internet search tools : what can they offer to users? (1997) 0.00
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = product of:
          0.009471525 = sum of:
            0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009471525 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  3. Chu, H.; Rosenthal, M.: Search engines for the World Wide Web : a comparative study and evaluation methodology (1996) 0.00
    0.0023435948 = product of:
      0.0046871896 = sum of:
        0.0046871896 = product of:
          0.009374379 = sum of:
            0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 7423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009374379 = score(doc=7423,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 7423, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7423)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Compares 3 WWW search engines (AltaVista, Excite, and Lycos) in terms of their search capabilities and retrieval performances using sample queires drawn from real reference questions. AltaVista outperformed Excite and Lycos in both search facilities and retrieval performance although Lycos had the largest coverage of WWW resources among the 3 WWW search engines examined. Proposes a methodology for evaluating other WWW search engines
    Type
    a
  4. Chu, H.: E-mail in scientific communication (1994) 0.00
    0.001674345 = product of:
      0.00334869 = sum of:
        0.00334869 = product of:
          0.00669738 = sum of:
            0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00669738 = score(doc=538,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Based on an e-mail survey administered to faculty members at two universities in the USA, the author found that there were positive relationships between e-mail use and such variables as specialty and experience with computers. Negative correlation, however, existed between age and the use of e-mail. The majority of the faculty members (92%) included in the current study used e-mail in scientific communication, and they preferred e-mail as a communication channel to other otions (e.g. telephone, fax). They also pointed out that improvements were needed should e-mail be used more extensively for scholarly purposes in the academia
    Type
    a
  5. Chu, H.: Research in image indexing and retrieval as reflected in the literature (2001) 0.00
    0.0011839407 = product of:
      0.0023678814 = sum of:
        0.0023678814 = product of:
          0.0047357627 = sum of:
            0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 6975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0047357627 = score(doc=6975,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 6975, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6975)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a