Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008446382 = product of:
  0.05912467 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=961,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 961, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=961)
    0.046891607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046891607 = score(doc=961,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 961, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=961)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Structured document retrieval makes use of document components as the basis of the retrieval process, rather than complete documents. The inherent relationships between these components make it vital to support users' natural browsing behaviour in order to offer effective and efficient access to structured documents. This paper examines the concept of best entry points, which are document components from which the user can browse to obtain optimal access to relevant document components. It investigates at the types of best entry points in structured document retrieval, and their usage and effectiveness in real information search tasks.

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines thematischen Schwerpunktes "Formal Methods for Information Retrieval"

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.89-105

0.0074184835 = product of:
  0.05192938 = sum of:
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 960, 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=960)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=960,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Structured document retrieval makes use of document components as the basis of the retrieval process, rather than complete documents. The inherent relationships between these components make it vital to support users' natural browsing behaviour in order to offer effective and efficient access to structured documents. This paper examines the concept of best entry points, which are document components from which the user can browse to obtain optimal access to relevant document components. In particular this paper investigates the basic characteristics of best entry points.

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines thematischen Schwerpunktes "Formal Methods for Information Retrieval"

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.74-88

0.005361108 = product of:
  0.037527755 = sum of:
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=4454,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=4454,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Multimedia retrieval is a complex and to some extent still unexplored area. Based on a full year of e-mail requests addressed to a large film archive this study analyses what types of information needs real users have and how these needs are expressed. The findings include that the requesters make use of a broad range of need attributes in specifying their information needs. These attributes relate to the production, content, subject, context and screening of films. However, a few attributes - especially title, production year and director - account for the majority of the attribute instances. Further, as much as 43 per cent of the requests contain no information about the context that gives rise to the request. The current indexing of the archived material is restricted to production-related attributes, and access to the material is, thus, frequently dependent on the archivists' extensive knowledge of the archived material and films in general.

0.0016731807 = product of:
  0.023424529 = sum of:
    0.023424529 = weight(_text_:information in 2073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023424529 = score(doc=2073,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.45029256 = fieldWeight in 2073, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2073)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Since common ground is pivotal to collaboration, this paper proposes to define collaborative information seeking as the combined activity of information seeking and collaborative grounding. While information-seeking activities are necessary for collaborating actors to acquire new information, the activities involved in information seeking are often performed by varying subgroups of actors. Consequently, collaborative grounding is necessary to share information among collaborating actors and, thereby, establish and maintain the common ground necessary for their collaborative work. By focusing on the collaborative level, collaborative information seeking aims to avoid both individual reductionism and group reductionism, while at the same time recognizing that only some information and understanding need be shared.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.957-962