Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016424846 = product of:
  0.057486955 = sum of:
    0.043686952 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043686952 = score(doc=7691,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 7691, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7691)
    0.013800003 = product of:
      0.041400008 = sum of:
        0.041400008 = weight(_text_:22 in 7691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041400008 = score(doc=7691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7691, 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=7691)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Compares and contrasts online searching on DataStar using the 'classic' command language, with access via the more recent Web interface (DataStar Web). The search functionality of the 2 interfaces is not identical, although both use the same retrieval software and access the same databases. Many of the differences affect retrieval effectiveness and may trip up novice and experienced searchers alike

Source

Online and CD-ROM review. 22(1998) no.3, S.155-167

0.007280753 = product of:
  0.05096527 = sum of:
    0.05096527 = weight(_text_:internet in 2661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05096527 = score(doc=2661,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.45196757 = fieldWeight in 2661, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2661)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Briefly summarizes the report, presented at the 1998 National Online Meeting, of the results of the Information today sponsored Internet search challenge to compare the searching of the WWW with traditional online search services (such as DIALOG or Dow Jones). Results indicated that the WWW takes at least twice as long as traditional methods. Relevance ratings were also found to be lower on WWW services

Theme

Internet

0.005460869 = product of:
  0.038226083 = sum of:
    0.038226083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038226083 = score(doc=4350,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Reports progress and future plans for a project to study the interactions of users with information retrieval interfaces. Tests are run with professional data base searchers and with end users who are members of a profession but have little or no searching experience. Interfaces tested include a command language search system used to search DIALOG bibliographic data bases, a non-procedural system that produces DIALOG commands, and several full text systems, including one using hypertext. The intent is to determine which kinds of users perform best with each type of interface. The project is being conducted jointly bay the University of Toronto and the University of Maryland

0.003861418 = product of:
  0.027029924 = sum of:
    0.027029924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027029924 = score(doc=3853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3853)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Considers 2 non-Boolean searching systems available on commercial online systems. QUESTQUORUM, based on coordination level searching, was introduced by ESA/IRS in Dec. 85. TARGET, which employs partial match probabilistic retrieval was introduced by DIALOG in Dec 93. 6 subject searches were carried out on databases available on both Dialog and ESA/IRS to compare TARGET and QUESTQUORUM with Boolean searching. Outlines the main advantages of these tools, and their disadvantages. Suggests when their use may be preferable

0.0029571436 = product of:
  0.020700004 = sum of:
    0.020700004 = product of:
      0.06210001 = sum of:
        0.06210001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06210001 = score(doc=4538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4538, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4538)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15