Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
precises%3a%2f_documents %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bloss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2f_documents %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyne %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2f_documents %2f subject classification schemes%3a bloss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
premises%3a%2f_documents %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1

Green, R.: Topical relevance relationships : 2: an exploratory study and preliminary typology (1995) 0.01

0.012778959 = product of:
  0.089452714 = sum of:
    0.036679097 = weight(_text_:subject in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036679097 = score(doc=3724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10938996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030584937 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
    0.052773613 = product of:
      0.10554723 = sum of:
        0.10554723 = weight(_text_:texts in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10554723 = score(doc=3724,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16767517 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030584937 = queryNorm
            0.6294744 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract: The assumption of topic matching between user needs and texts topically relevant to those needs is often erroneous. Reports an emprical investigantion of the question 'what relationship types actually account for topical relevance'? In order to avoid the bias to topic matching search strategies, user needs are back generated from a randomly selected subset of the subject headings employed in a user oriented topical concordance. The corresponding relevant texts are those indicated in the concordance under the subject heading. Compares the topics of the user needs with the topics of the relevant texts to determine the relationships between them. Topical relevance relationships include a large variety of relationships, only some of which are matching relationships. Others are examples of paradigmatic or syntagmatic relationships. There appear to be no constraints on the kinds of relationships that can function as topical relevance relationships. They are distinguishable from other types of relationships only on functional grounds