-
Davis, C.H.: Beyond Boole : the next logical step (1995)
0.01
0.009411185 = product of:
0.023527961 = sum of:
0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 3550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010897844 = score(doc=3550,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3550, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3550)
0.012630116 = product of:
0.025260232 = sum of:
0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 3550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025260232 = score(doc=3550,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 3550, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3550)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 21(1995), S.17-20
- Type
- a
-
Davis, C.H.: Indexing and index editing at Chemical Abstracts before the Registry System (2004)
0.01
0.007189882 = product of:
0.017974705 = sum of:
0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 4177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0068111527 = score(doc=4177,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4177, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4177)
0.011163551 = product of:
0.022327103 = sum of:
0.022327103 = weight(_text_:information in 4177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022327103 = score(doc=4177,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 4177, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4177)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Imprint
- Medford, NJ : Information Today
- Source
- ¬The history and heritage of scientific and technological information systems: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference. Ed. by W. Boyd Rayward, Mary Ellen Bowden
- Type
- a
-
Davis, C.H.: From document retrieval to Web browsing : some universal concerns (1997)
0.01
0.0069400403 = product of:
0.0173501 = sum of:
0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009535614 = score(doc=399,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
0.007814486 = product of:
0.015628971 = sum of:
0.015628971 = weight(_text_:information in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015628971 = score(doc=399,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Computer based systems can produce enourmous retrieval sets even when good search logic is used. Sometimes this is desirable, more often it is not. Appropriate filters can limit search results, but they represent only a partial solution. Simple ranking techniques are needed that are both effective and easily understood by the humans doing the searching. Optimal search output, whether from a traditional database or the Internet, will result when intuitive interfaces are designed that inspire confidence while making the necessary mathematics transparent. Weighted term searching using powers of 2, a technique proposed early in the history of information retrieval, can be simplifies and used in combination with modern graphics and textual input to achieve these results
- Source
- Journal of information; communication; and library science. 3(1997) no.3, S.3-10
- Type
- a
-
Sun, Q.; Shaw, D.; Davis, C.H.: ¬A model for estimating the occurence of same-frequency words and the boundary between high- and low-frequency words in texts (1999)
0.01
0.0068817483 = product of:
0.01720437 = sum of:
0.011678694 = weight(_text_:a in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011678694 = score(doc=3063,freq=12.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
0.005525676 = product of:
0.011051352 = sum of:
0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 3063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011051352 = score(doc=3063,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3063, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3063)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A simpler model is proposed for estimating the frequency of any same-frequency words and identifying the boundary point between high-frequency words and low-frequency words in a text. The model, based on a 'maximum-ranking method', assigns ranks to the words and estimates word frequency by a formula. The boundary value between high-frequency and low-frequency words is obtained by taking the square root of the number of different words in the text. This straightforward model was used successfully with both English and Chinese texts
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.3, S.280-286
- Type
- a
-
Davis, C.H.; McKim, G.W.: Systematic weighting and ranking : cutting the Gordian knot (1999)
0.01
0.0060245167 = product of:
0.015061291 = sum of:
0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009535614 = score(doc=3548,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
0.005525676 = product of:
0.011051352 = sum of:
0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011051352 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A powers-of-two algorithm is described that automatically creates discrete, well-defined, and unique result sets, displaying them in decreasing order of likely relevance. All computations are transparent, and a simple query form allows the searcher to focus on the choice of terms and their sequence - an implicit indicator of their relative importance. The program can be used with traditional databases or with search engines designed for the WWW. It also can be used with an intelligent agent to search the Web with a pushdown store, returning only those items that best reflect the searcher's stated interests
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.7, S.626-628
- Type
- a
-
Davis, C.H.; Shaw, D.: Comparison of retrieval system interfaces using an objective measure of screen design effectiveness (1989)
0.01
0.005513504 = product of:
0.01378376 = sum of:
0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 3325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008258085 = score(doc=3325,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3325, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3325)
0.005525676 = product of:
0.011051352 = sum of:
0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 3325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011051352 = score(doc=3325,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3325, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3325)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Many evaluations of screen design for computer system interfaces are subjective. At best, they consist of sophisticated measures of user behaviour based on instruments devised by cognitive scientists: at worst, they represent only the preconceived notions of software designers. 2 straightforward experiments are described that use tallies of keyboarding errors as a measure of interface effectiveness. By programming the computer to keep such tallies during the input of search logic for a retrieval system, it is possible to obtain objectives and empirically based data for comparing the effectiveness of different interface designs
- Source
- Library and information science research. 11(1989) no.4, S.325-334
- Type
- a
