Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Smith, M.P."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Smith, M.P.; Pollitt, A.S.: ¬The potential for incorporating document ranking in the MenUSE front-end search internemdiary system (1996) 0.05 
    0.047970545 = product of:
  0.14391163 = sum of:
    0.13544871 = weight(_text_:ranking in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13544871 = score(doc=6980,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.66815823 = fieldWeight in 6980, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6980)
    0.008462917 = product of:
      0.025388751 = sum of:
        0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025388751 = score(doc=6980,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 6980, 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=6980)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Reviews research which aims to improve the ways in which documents are presented to the user within the MenUSE (Menu based User Search Engine) search intermediary system. MenUSE is an advanced intermediary system for end user searching of bibliographic databases originating in CANSEARCH, a prototype intermediary system that used an expert systems approach to generate searches in cancer therapy related information retrieval from MEDLINE. In particular it investigates ways in which the order of presentation of documents can be made more effective. Discusses alternative schemes for document reordering, the main emphasis being on the provision of relevance ranking where the most relevant documents are presented to the user first. Examines the feasibility of incorporating such ranking techniques into MenUSE and compares 3 algorithms which simulate collection frequency ranking on a remote bibliographic database host using Boolean searching. Concludes that the CIRT algorithm offers the best performance. Proposes a design for an enhancement to the MenUSE system which will be the subject of user testing to verify the effectiveness of ranking in MenUSE
    Source
    Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
  2. Smith, M.P.; Pollitt, A.S.: Ranking and relevance feedback extensions to a view-based searching system (1995) 0.02 
    0.020983625 = product of:
  0.12590174 = sum of:
    0.12590174 = weight(_text_:ranking in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12590174 = score(doc=3855,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.62106377 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The University of Huddersfield, UK, is researching ways of incorporating ranking and relevance feedback techniques into a thesaurus based searching system. The INSPEC database on STN International was searched using the VUSE (View-based Search Engine) interface. Thesaurus terms from documents judged to be relevant by users were used to query INSPEC and create a ranking of documents based on probabilistic methods. An evaluation was carried out to establish whether or not it would be better for the user to continue searching with the thesaurus based front end or to use relevance feedback, looking at the ranked list of documents it would produce. Also looks at the amount of effort the user had to expend to get relevant documents in terms of the number of non relevant documents seen between relevant documents
  3. Smith, M.P.; Pollitt, S.A.: ¬A comparison of ranking formulae and their ranks (1995) 0.02 
    0.019988567 = product of:
  0.1199314 = sum of:
    0.1199314 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1199314 = score(doc=5802,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.5916125 = fieldWeight in 5802, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5802)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Reports a study to compare the ranking produced by several well known probabilistic formulae. Values for the variables used in these formulae (collection frequency for a query term, number of relevant documents retrieved, and number of relevant documents retrieved, and number of relevant documents indexed by the query term) were derived using a random number generator, the number of documents in the collection was fixed at 500.000. This produced ranked bands for each formula using document term characteristics rather than actual documents. These rankings were compared with one another using the Spearman Rho ranked correlation co-efficient to determine how closely the algorithms rank documents. There is little difference in the rankings produced by the Expected Mutual Information measure EMIM and the simpler F4.5 weighting scheme

Authors

Themes