Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Huffman, G.D."
  1. Huffman, G.D.: Semi-automatic determination of citation relevancy : user evaluation (1990) 0.03 
    0.028405545 = product of:
  0.05681109 = sum of:
    0.05681109 = sum of:
      0.008191418 = weight(_text_:e in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008191418 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07368642 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05126476 = queryNorm
          0.1111659 = fieldWeight in 4158, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4158)
      0.048619673 = weight(_text_:22 in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048619673 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17952046 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05126476 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Language
    e
  2. Huffman, G.D.; Vital, D.A.; Bivins, R.G.: Generating indices with lexical association methods : term uniqueness (1990) 0.00 
    0.0014627532 = product of:
  0.0029255063 = sum of:
    0.0029255063 = product of:
      0.0058510127 = sum of:
        0.0058510127 = weight(_text_:e in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0058510127 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07368642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05126476 = queryNorm
            0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e

Authors

Themes