Huffman, G.D.: Semi-automatic determination of citation relevancy : user evaluation (1990)
0.00
0.0022926312 = product of:
0.034389466 = sum of:
0.034389466 = sum of:
0.00690658 = weight(_text_:information in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00690658 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4158, 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=4158)
0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027482886 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.028978055 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4158, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4158)
0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
- Abstract
- Online bibiographic, database searches typically produce hundreds of retrieved citations with only about 20-40% relevant to the search topic and/or problem statement. Significant amounts of time are required to categorize and select the relevant citations. A software system-SORT-AIDS/SABRE-has been developes which ranks the citations in terms of relevance. This paper presents the results of a comprehensive user evaluation of the relevance ranking procedures. Test results show that the software generated distributions approach the ideal distribution-all relevant citations at the beginning of the collection-in 22% of the cases, are 23% better than the random distribution-relevant citations distributed uniformly throughout the dcollection-on average and are poorer than the random distribution in 4% of the cae.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 26(1990) no.2, S.295-302