Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022301702 = product of:
  0.0669051 = sum of:
    0.0669051 = product of:
      0.10035765 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 2179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=2179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2179)
        0.069204 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069204 = score(doc=2179,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 2179, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2179)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses a retrieval study that focused on collection level archival records in the OCLC OLUC, made accessible through the EPIC online search system. Data were also collected from the local OPAC at North Carolina University at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in which UNC-CH produced OCLC records are loaded. The chief objective was to explore the retrieval environments in which a random sample of USMARC AMC records produced at UNC-CH were found: specifically to obtain a picture of the density of these databases in regard to each subject heading applied and, more generally, for each records. Key questions were: how many records would be retrieved for each subject heading attached to each of the records; and what was the nature of these subject headings vis a vis the numer of hits associated with them. Results show that large retrieval sets are a potential problem with national bibliographic utilities and that the local and national retrieval environments can vary greatly. The need for specifity in indexing is emphasized

0.018400777 = product of:
  0.05520233 = sum of:
    0.05520233 = product of:
      0.082803495 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 2536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2536)
        0.041265294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041265294 = score(doc=2536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 2536, 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=2536)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.006948821 = product of:
  0.020846462 = sum of:
    0.020846462 = product of:
      0.062539384 = sum of:
        0.062539384 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062539384 = score(doc=3329,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Compares the performance of partial match options, LEXIS/NEXIS's Freestyle, with that of traditional Boolean retrieval. Defines natural language and the natural language search engines currently available. Although the Boolean searches had better results more often than the Freestyle searches, neither mechanism demonstrated superior performance for every query. These results do not in any way prove the superiority of partial match techniques or exact match techniques, but they do suggest that different queries demand different techniques. Further study and analysis are needed to determine which elements of a query make it best suited for partial match or exact match retrieval

0.006877549 = product of:
  0.020632647 = sum of:
    0.020632647 = product of:
      0.06189794 = sum of:
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=2254,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)