Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

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

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

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

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

0.0012196454 = product of:
  0.0024392908 = sum of:
    0.0024392908 = product of:
      0.0048785815 = sum of:
        0.0048785815 = weight(_text_:a in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0048785815 = score(doc=92,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.09186576 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.2, S.215-216 (A. Heath): "What is small, thoroughly organized, and easy to understand? Well, it's Heting Chu's latest book an information retrieval. A very welcome release, this small literary addition to the field (only 248 pages) contains a concise and weIl-organized discussion of every major topic in information retrieval. The often-complex field of information retrieval is presented from its origin in the early 1950s to the present day. The organization of this text is top-notch, thus making this an easy read for even the novice. Unlike other titles in this area, Chu's user-friendly style of writing is done an purpose to properly introduce newcomers to the field in a less intimidating way. As stated by the author in the Preface, the purpose of the book is to "present a systematic, thorough yet nontechnical view of the field by using plain language to explain complex subjects." Chu has definitely struck up the right combination of ingredients. In a field so broad and complex, a well-organized presentation of topics that don't trip an themselves is essential. The use of plain language where possible is also a good choice for this topic because it allows one to absorb topics that are, by nature, not as easy to grasp. For instance, Chapters 6 and 7, which cover retrieval approaches and techniques, an often painstaking topic for many students and teachers is deftly handled with the use of tables that can be used to compare and contrast the various models discussed. I particularly loved Chu's use of Koll's 2000 article from the Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science to explain subject searching at the beginning of Chapter 6, which discusses the differences between browsing and searching. The Koll article uses the task of finding a needle in a haystack as an analogy.
Chu's intent with this book is clear throughout the entire text. With this presentation, she writes with the novice in mind or as she puls it in the Preface, "to anyone who is interested in learning about the field, particularly those who are new to it." After reading the text, I found that this book is also an appropriate reference book for those who are somewhat advanced in the field. I found the chapters an information retrieval models and techniques, metadata, and AI very informative in that they contain information that is often rather densely presented in other texts. Although, I must say, the metadata section in Chapter 3 is pretty basic and contains more questions about the area than information. . . . It is an excellent book to have in the classroom, an your bookshelf, etc. It reads very well and is written with the reader in mind. If you are in need of a more advanced or technical text an the subject, this is not the book for you. But, if you are looking for a comprehensive, manual that can be used as a "flip-through," then you are in luck."

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