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 
    0.03438285 = product of:
  0.0687657 = sum of:
    0.05503747 = weight(_text_:processing in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05503747 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 4158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4158)
    0.013728233 = product of:
      0.041184697 = sum of:
        0.041184697 = weight(_text_:22 in 4158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041184697 = score(doc=4158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15206799 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  2. Huffman, G.D.; Vital, D.A.; Bivins, R.G.: Generating indices with lexical association methods : term uniqueness (1990) 0.02 
    0.024603685 = product of:
  0.04920737 = sum of:
    0.03931248 = weight(_text_:processing in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03931248 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.175792 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043425296 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
    0.009894893 = product of:
      0.029684676 = sum of:
        0.029684676 = weight(_text_:29 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029684676 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15275662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043425296 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    23.11.1995 11:29:46
    Source
    Information processing and management. 26(1990) no.4, S.549-558

Authors

Themes