Search (26 results, page 2 of 2)

2.9430876E-4 = product of:
  0.005886175 = sum of:
    0.005886175 = weight(_text_:in in 1307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005886175 = score(doc=1307,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 1307, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1307)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Series

Addison-Wesley series in computer science

2.9135082E-4 = product of:
  0.005827016 = sum of:
    0.005827016 = weight(_text_:in in 4151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005827016 = score(doc=4151,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4151, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4151)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Two widerly used criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems are, respectively, the recall and the precision. Since the determiniation of these measures is dependent on a distinction between documents which are relevant to a given query and documents which are not relevant to that query, it has sometimes been claimed that an accurate, generally valid evaluation cannot be based on recall and precision measure. A study was made to determine the effect of variations in relevance assesments do not produce significant variations in average recall and precision. It thus appears that properly computed recall and precision data may represent effectiveness indicators which are gemerally valid for many distinct user classes.

2.35447E-4 = product of:
  0.00470894 = sum of:
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 5250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=5250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5250)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Substatioal misgivings have been voiced over the years about the methodologies used to evaluate IR procedures and about the credibility of many of the available test results. In this note, an attempt is made to review the state of retrieval evaluation and to separate certain misgivings about the design of retrieval tests from conclusions that can legitimately be drawn from the evaluation results

2.35447E-4 = product of:
  0.00470894 = sum of:
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 3879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=3879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3879)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

While a number of researchers had experimented during the 1950's on automatic indexing and retrieval in various forms, it was Gerard Salton who brought the information retrieval experimental paradigm to full fruition, with his "SMART" system. His work has been enormously influential.

2.0601612E-4 = product of:
  0.0041203224 = sum of:
    0.0041203224 = weight(_text_:in in 1522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041203224 = score(doc=1522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 1522, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1522)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the National Federation of Astracting and Information Services, Philadelphia, 28 Feb-2 Mar 88. In recent years, the amount and the variety of available machine-readable data, new technologies have been introduced, such as high density storage devices, and fancy graphic displays useful for information transformation and access. New approaches have also been considered for processing the stored data based on the construction of knowledge bases representing the contents and structure of the information, and the use of expert system techniques to control the user-system interactions. Provides a brief evaluation of the new information processing technologies, and of the software methods proposed for information manipulation.

2.0601612E-4 = product of:
  0.0041203224 = sum of:
    0.0041203224 = weight(_text_:in in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041203224 = score(doc=145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Applies the ideas from the automatic link generation research to automatic text summarisation. Using techniques for inter-document link generation, generates intra-document links between passages of a document. Based on the intra-document linkage pattern of a text, characterises the structure of the text. Applies the knowledge of text structure to do automatic text summarisation by passage extraction. Evaluates a set of 50 summaries generated using these techniques by comparing the to paragraph extracts constructed by humans. The automatic summarisation methods perform well, especially in view of the fact that the summaries generates by 2 humans for the same article are surprisingly dissimilar