Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015961196 = product of:
  0.05586418 = sum of:
    0.038614176 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038614176 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.017250005 = product of:
      0.05175001 = sum of:
        0.05175001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05175001 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Pages

S.22-25

0.0066195736 = product of:
  0.046337012 = sum of:
    0.046337012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046337012 = score(doc=206,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

0.005516311 = product of:
  0.038614176 = sum of:
    0.038614176 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038614176 = score(doc=5585,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users' or user surrogates' assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems-inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster's (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.

0.004413049 = product of:
  0.030891342 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Synthesises the major findings of several decades of research into the magnitude of individual deffirences in information retrieval related tasks and suggests implications for practice and design. The study is related to a series of studies of human aspects and cognitive decision making in information seeking, searching and retrieving