Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05757453 = product of:
  0.11514906 = sum of:
    0.11514906 = sum of:
      0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 5405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015308296 = score(doc=5405,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 5405, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5405)
      0.09984076 = weight(_text_:22 in 5405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09984076 = score(doc=5405,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5405, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5405)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 10(1992) no.4, S.7-22

Type

a

0.021209672 = product of:
  0.042419344 = sum of:
    0.042419344 = sum of:
      0.011219106 = weight(_text_:a in 1794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011219106 = score(doc=1794,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 1794, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1794)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1794,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1794, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1794)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we describe and test a two-stage algorithm based on a lexical collocation technique which maps from the lexical clues contained in a document representation into a controlled vocabulary list of subject headings. Using a collection of 4.626 INSPEC documents, we create a 'dictionary' of associations between the lexical items contained in the titles, authors, and abstracts, and controlled vocabulary subject headings assigned to those records by human indexers using a likelihood ratio statistic as the measure of association. In the deployment stage, we use the dictiony to predict which of the controlled vocabulary subject headings best describe new documents when they are presented to the system. Our evaluation of this algorithm, in which we compare the automatically assigned subject headings to the subject headings assigned to the test documents by human catalogers, shows that we can obtain results comparable to, and consistent with, human cataloging. In effect we have cast this as a classic partial match information retrieval problem. We consider the problem to be one of 'retrieving' (or assigning) the most probably 'relevant' (or correct) controlled vocabulary subject headings to a document based on the clues contained in that document

Date

11. 9.2000 19:53:22

Type

a

0.0030255679 = product of:
  0.0060511357 = sum of:
    0.0060511357 = product of:
      0.012102271 = sum of:
        0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 4438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012102271 = score(doc=4438,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 4438, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents the design of a prototype adaptive online catalogue. Online catalogue searches commonly retrieve too few or too many items. The prototype, implemented as a transparent workstation based front end to a MELVYL online catalogue of the holdings of the 9 campuses of California Universities, adapts to excessive or insufficient retrieval by strategically limiting, sorting or expanding users' searches, based on preferences defined by the user

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=3028,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3028, 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=3028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The growing number and sophistication of online bibliographic and networked based information systems is starting to blur the once clear boundaries that separated print documents. 2 concepts emerge as a consequence of these developments, first the 'union record', an entity which combines multiple catalog records for a single bibliographic item into an extended information object; and 2nd, an information 'dossier', a hypertext-like information object built by linking several distinct but related bibliographic entites

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 8487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=8487,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 8487, 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=8487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Traditionally, card catalogues have been dominated by the alphabetical arrangement of the cataloguing records, since only a single, fixed ordering arrangement can be supported. However, the alphabetical arragement has been carried over to online catalogues, with some unfortunate consequences. Reconsiders alphabetical order in relation to the purposes of catalogues and differences in catalogue technology. Examines document ranking, subset ranking, and adaptive filtering as alternatives in online catalogues to displays of catalogue records in alphabetical order of main entry

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a