Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Sievert, M.C."
  1. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.02 
    0.016279016 = product of:
  0.040697537 = sum of:
    0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018058153 = score(doc=7242,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems
    Date
    22. 4.1997 21:10:19
  2. Patrick, T.B.; Sievert, M.C.; Popescu, M.: Text indexing of images based on graphical image content (1999) 0.01 
    0.0092981905 = product of:
  0.023245476 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 6680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=6680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 6680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6680)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.014930432 = weight(_text_:of in 6680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014930432 = score(doc=6680,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 6680, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6680)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Typically, three alternatives methods are proposed for indexing images in an image database: (1) manually assigning index terms to the image; (2) indexing the images based on associated text; or (3) indexing images based on their graphical content. Method (1) is very labor intensive and intractable for large image databases. Associated text is not always available for method (2). Method (3) may not be sufficiently user- friendly in that users may prefer to express concepts and request information using language rather than images. We describe our investigation of an indexing method that is an alternative to (1) - (3). The method addresses the problem of automatically text indexing images by assigning text index terms to prototypical reference images and using a content based strategy to retrieve images that are similar in graphical content to the reference images. The index terms assigned to the reference images are assigned to the retrieved images using the retrieval similarity scores as term weights. We conclude by discussing reasons why it may be difficult to assign correctly a set of terms rather than a single term
    Series
    Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36
    Source
    Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods
  3. Sievert, M.C.: Full-text information retrieval : introduction (1996) 0.00 
    0.0045145387 = product of:
  0.022572692 = sum of:
    0.022572692 = weight(_text_:of in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022572692 = score(doc=4719,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Introduces a special section devoted to full text information retrieval. Gives an overview of full text databases and research into them. There is a lack of a single definition of full text. Articles in the library related literature about full text have appeared with increasing frequnecy
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.261-262
  4. Patrick, T.B.; Sievert, M.C.; Ries, J.; Popescu, M.; Andrews, J.; Reid, J.C.: Clustering terms in health care terminologies (1999) 0.00 
    0.0042229644 = product of:
  0.02111482 = sum of:
    0.02111482 = weight(_text_:of in 6688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02111482 = score(doc=6688,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 6688, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6688)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The authors describe the development of processes and methods for user-centered access to collections of information. The implementation of this general model uses a standard terminology to represent the information collection and a set of possibly overlapping user domains to represent a social network. The goal of the implementation is to provide access to the terminology that is tailored to the needs of specific combinations of user domains. A pilot study using the Metathesaurus of the Unified Medical Language System and the user domains of consumer, radiologist, ophthalmologist, and family medicine physician was conducted by clustering terms across these domains. In three of the domains, consumer, radiologist, and ophthalmologist, we extracted terms from sources with user-warrant-- unpublished, work-related documents (e.g. clinical notes or email messages). For all four domains we extracted terms from sources with literary-warrant-- published documents (e.g. scientific journal articles or patient information pamphlets. For the clustering, the authors used a standard minimum spanning tree clustering algorithm with a weighted binary vector distance. The clustering algorithm produced clusters of quasi-synonyms and provided an alternative way to view the terms in the Metathesaurus
    Series
    Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36
    Source
    Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods
  5. Sievert, M.C.; Andrews, M.J.: Indexing consistency in Information Science Abstracts (1991) 0.00 
    0.0036116305 = product of:
  0.018058153 = sum of:
    0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018058153 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 42(1991), S.1-6

Authors

Themes