Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0033826875 = product of:
  0.006765375 = sum of:
    0.006765375 = product of:
      0.01353075 = sum of:
        0.01353075 = weight(_text_:a in 4491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01353075 = score(doc=4491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 4491, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=4491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 4276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=4276,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4276, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines judgements of relevance of document representations to query statements made by people other than the the originators of the queries. A small group of graduate students in the School of Information and Library Studies and undergraduates of Michigan Univ. judges sets of documents that had been retrieved for and judged by real users for a previous study. The assessment of relevance, by the secondary judges, were analysed by themselves and in comparison with the users' assessments. The judges performed reasonably well but some important differences were identified. Secondary judges use the various fields of document records in different ways than users and have a higher threshold of relevance

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 3831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=3831,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3831, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines how users' judgements of the relevance of documents change as more information about the document is revealed to them. Subjects (university faculty and doctoral students) viewed 3 incremental versions of ducuments, and recorded ratio-level relevance judgements for each version. These judgements were analysed by a variety of methods, including graphical inspection and examination of the number and degree of changes of judgements as new information is seen. A questionnaire was aöso administered to obtain subjects' perceptions of the process and the individual fields of information presented. A consistent pattern of perception and importance of these fields is seen: Abstracts are by far the most important field and have the greatest impact, following by titles, bibliographic information and indexing

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 4845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=4845,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4845, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Replicates a previous study by Eisenberg and Hu regarding users' perceptions of the binary or dichotomous nature of their relevance judgements. The studies examined the assumptions that searchers divide documents evenly into relevant and nonrelevant. 35 staff, faculty and doctoral students at Michigan Univ., School of Education and Dept. of Psychology conducted searchers and the retrieved documents submitted to the searchers in 3 incremental versions: title only; title and abstract; title, abstract and indexing information: At each stage the subjects were asked to judge the relevance of the document to the query. The findings support the earlier study and the break points between relevance and nonrelevance was not at or near 50%

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3135,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3135, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the rethinking and revision of a course on online searching, at Michigan University, brought about by the proliferation of information services and interface available online. The course now focuses much more on the concepts underlying information searching and their interrelationships, exposes students to a wider variety of information services while still allowing them to develop skills on 1 specific system, and asks students to ne reflective regarding their own searching as well as the environment. The aim of this new version is to help students understand what expert searchers know about searching, their wisdom, by talking about more than file structures and search languages

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a new measure of retrieval evaluation, called 'corrected precision', which attempts to refine the traditional precision measure by taking account of differences between users in their selectivity when judging the relevance of documents. Presents the formula for calculating corrected precision and brief remarks about its development and use, advantages and disadvantages, and summary statsitics comparing the 2 from an empirical study of relevance

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=6929,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The emerging user-centric model of relevance proposes that the only valid measure of relevance of a document to a user's information need is the one made by that user. If we accept this proposition, it raises an intersting question: how ell do other people, especially those involved in information work who make such judgments as part of their training and work, perform as judges of documents for information needs they did not originate? This question was empirically tested, using three groups of subjects: incoming students to a school of information/library science, continuing students in that school, and academic librarians (holders of the MLS degree). These subjects made judgments of either 'relevance', 'utility', or 'topicality' of two document sets to the original users' stated information need. These judgments were then compared to those of the users to see what patterns emerged, and to see what can be learned not only about secondary judgments in general, but also the ways in which information and library professionals made such judgments. These results are interesting in their own right (subject's judgments compared reasonably well to those of users, looked more like users' after more training and experience in library work, and fall into interesting patterns), but they also lead to some provocative questions about the nature of judgment and evaluation of information items

Type

a