Search (183 results, page 1 of 10)

0.02725509 = product of:
  0.09539281 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=446)
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=446)
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=446,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 446, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=446)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=446,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 446, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=446)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

This study investigated information retrieval from hypertext on the WWW. Significant main and interaction effects were found for both link density (number of links per display) and display format (in paragraphs or lists) on search performance. Low link densities displayed in list format produced the best overall results, in terms of search accuracy, search time, number of links explored, and search task prioritization. Lower densities affected user ability to prioritize search tasks and produced more accurate searches, while list displays positively affected all aspects of searching except task prioritization. The performance of novices and experts, in terms of their previous experience browsing hypertext on the WWW, was compared. Experts performed better, mostly because of their superior task prioritization

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.2, S.176-182

0.02309879 = product of:
  0.08084576 = sum of:
    0.032137483 = weight(_text_:wide in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032137483 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=6690,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=6690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

In assessing information retrieval systems, it is important to know not only the precision of the retrieved set, but also to compare the number of retrieved relevant items to the total number of relevant items. For large collections, such as the TREC test collections, or the World Wide Web, it is not possible to enumerate the entire set of relevant documents. If the retrieved documents are evaluated, a variant of the statistical "capture-recapture" method can be used to estimate the total number of relevant documents, providing the several retrieval systems used are sufficiently independent. We show that the underlying signal detection model supporting such an analysis can be extended in two ways. First, assuming that there are two distinct performance characteristics (corresponding to the chance of retrieving a relevant, and retrieving a given non-relevant document), we show that if there are three or more independent systems available it is possible to estimate the number of relevant documents without actually having to decide whether each individual document is relevant. We report applications of this 3-system method to the TREC data, leading to the conclusion that the independence assumptions are not satisfied. We then extend the model to a multi-system, multi-problem model, and show that it is possible to include statistical dependencies of all orders in the model, and determine the number of relevant documents for each of the problems in the set. Application to the TREC setting will be presented

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

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

0.022716343 = product of:
  0.1060096 = sum of:
    0.044992477 = weight(_text_:wide in 1314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044992477 = score(doc=1314,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 1314, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1314)
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 1314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=1314,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1314, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1314)
    0.046891607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046891607 = score(doc=1314,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 1314, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1314)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) workshop series encourages research in information retrieval from large text applications by providing a large test collection, uniform scoring procedures and a forum for organizations interested in comparing their results. Now in its seventh year, the conference has become the major experimental effort in the field. Participants in the TREC conferences have examined a wide variety of retrieval techniques, including methods using automatic thesauri, sophisticated term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching. The TREC conference series is co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Information Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 24(1998), April/May, S.11-13

0.021277322 = product of:
  0.09929416 = sum of:
    0.051419973 = weight(_text_:wide in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051419973 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=786,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
    0.033893548 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033893548 = score(doc=786,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 786, 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=786)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The traditional recall and precision measure is inappropriate when retrieval algorithms that retrieve information from Wide Area Networks are evaluated. The principle reason is that information available in WANs is dynamic and its size os orders of magnitude greater than the size of the usual test collections. To overcome these problems, a new efffectiveness measure has been developed, which we call the 'usefulness measure'

Source

Information retrieval: GI/GMD-Workshop, Darmstadt, 23.-24.6.1991: Proceedings. Ed.: N. Fuhr

0.018385304 = product of:
  0.085798085 = sum of:
    0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 6689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029588435 = score(doc=6689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 6689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6689)
    0.016016837 = weight(_text_:information in 6689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016837 = score(doc=6689,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 6689, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6689)
    0.04019281 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04019281 = score(doc=6689,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 6689, 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=6689)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

An important indicator of a maturating Internet is the development of metrics for its evaluation as a practical tool for enduser information retrieval. However, the Internet presents specific problems for traditional IR measures, such as the need to deal with the variety of classes of retrieval tools. This paper presents a metric for comparing the performance of common classes of Internet information retrieval tool, including human indexed catalogs of web resources and automatically indexed databases of web pages. The metric uses a relevance-based quantitative measure to compare the performance of endusers using these Internet information retrieval tools. The benefit of the proposed metric is that it is relevance-based (using enduser relevance judgments), and it facilitates the comparison of the performance of different classes of IIR tools

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol36

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

0.016621336 = product of:
  0.077566236 = sum of:
    0.032137483 = weight(_text_:wide in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032137483 = score(doc=3004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=3004,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
    0.036690846 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036690846 = score(doc=3004,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to bring attention to the problem of variations in relevance assessments and the effects that these may have on measures of retrieval effectiveness. Through an analytical review of the literature, I show that despite known wide variations in relevance assessments in experimental test collections, their effects on the measurement of retrieval performance are almost completely unstudied. I will further argue that what we know about tha many variables that have been found to affect relevance assessments under experimental conditions, as well as our new understanding of psychological, situational, user-based relevance, point to a single conclusion. We can no longer rest the evaluation of information retrieval systems on the assumption that such variations do not significantly affect the measurement of information retrieval performance. A series of thourough, rigorous, and extensive tests is needed, of precisely how, and under what conditions, variations in relevance assessments do, and do not, affect measures of retrieval performance. We need to develop approaches to evaluation that are sensitive to these variations and to human factors and individual differences more generally. Our approaches to evaluation must reflect the real world of real users

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.37-49

0.016029192 = product of:
  0.0748029 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
    0.018736245 = product of:
      0.056208733 = sum of:
        0.056208733 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056208733 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:43:54

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.4, S.272-281

0.015864639 = product of:
  0.07403498 = sum of:
    0.032137483 = weight(_text_:wide in 6541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032137483 = score(doc=6541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 6541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6541)
    0.015953152 = weight(_text_:information in 6541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015953152 = score(doc=6541,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.30666938 = fieldWeight in 6541, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6541)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=6541,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 6541, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6541)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The growing number of networked information resources and services offers unprecedented opportunities for delivering high quality information to the computer desktop of a wide range of individuals. However, currently there is a reliance on a database retrieval model, in which endusers use keywords to search large collections of automatically indexed resources in order to find needed information. As an alternative to the database retrieval model, this paper outlines the classical digital library model, which is derived from traditional practices of library and information science professionals. These practices include the selection and organization of information resources for local populations of users and the integration of advanced information retrieval tools, such as databases and the Internet into these collections. To evaluate this model, library and information professionals and endusers involved with primary care medicine were asked to respond to a series of questions comparing their experiences with a digital library developed for the primary care population to their experiences with general Internet use. Preliminary results are reported

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

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

0.01515419 = product of:
  0.070719555 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=399,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=399,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
    0.036322083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036322083 = score(doc=399,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 399, 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=399)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Computer based systems can produce enourmous retrieval sets even when good search logic is used. Sometimes this is desirable, more often it is not. Appropriate filters can limit search results, but they represent only a partial solution. Simple ranking techniques are needed that are both effective and easily understood by the humans doing the searching. Optimal search output, whether from a traditional database or the Internet, will result when intuitive interfaces are designed that inspire confidence while making the necessary mathematics transparent. Weighted term searching using powers of 2, a technique proposed early in the history of information retrieval, can be simplifies and used in combination with modern graphics and textual input to achieve these results

Source

Journal of information; communication; and library science. 3(1997) no.3, S.3-10

0.015011635 = product of:
  0.07005429 = sum of:
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=6971,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
    0.047932718 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047932718 = score(doc=6971,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, 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=6971)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Describes the Reuters test collection, which at 22.173 references is significantly larger than most traditional test collections. In addition, Reuters has none of the recall calculation problems normally associated with some of the larger test collections available. Explains the method derived by D.D. Lewis to perform retrieval experiments on the Reuters collection and illustrates the use of the Reuters collection using some simple retrieval experiments that compare the performance of stemming algorithms

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

0.014812132 = product of:
  0.06912328 = sum of:
    0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013536699 = score(doc=6967,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
    0.04755677 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04755677 = score(doc=6967,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5305404 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
    0.008029819 = product of:
      0.024089456 = sum of:
        0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024089456 = score(doc=6967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Explains briefly what constitutes the imaging process and explains how imaging can be used in information retrieval. Proposes an approach based on the concept of: 'a term is a possible world'; which enables the exploitation of term to term relationships which are estimated using an information theoretic measure. Reports results of an evaluation exercise to compare the performance of imaging retrieval, using possible world semantics, with a benchmark and using the Cranfield 2 document collection to measure precision and recall. Initially, the performance imaging retrieval was seen to be better but statistical analysis proved that the difference was not significant. The problem with imaging retrieval lies in the amount of computations needed to be performed at run time and a later experiement investigated the possibility of reducing this amount. Notes lines of further investigation

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

0.014677027 = product of:
  0.06849279 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=3368,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
    0.046891607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046891607 = score(doc=3368,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
    0.009368123 = product of:
      0.028104367 = sum of:
        0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028104367 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The performance of an information retrieval or text and media filtering system may be determined through analytic methods as well as by traditional simulation or experimental methods. These analytic methods can provide precise statements about expected performance. They can thus determine which of 2 similarly performing systems is superior. For both a single query terms and for a multiple query term retrieval model, a model for comparing the performance of different probabilistic retrieval methods is developed. This method may be used in computing the average search length for a query, given only knowledge of database parameter values. Describes predictive models for inverse document frequency, binary independence, and relevance feedback based retrieval and filtering. Simulation illustrate how the single term model performs and sample performance predictions are given for single term and multiple term problems

Date

22. 2.1996 13:14:10

Source

Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.4, S.555-572

0.011394122 = product of:
  0.079758845 = sum of:
    0.05579249 = weight(_text_:web in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05579249 = score(doc=760,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 760, 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=760)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Reports a comparison of the retrieval effectiveness of the AltaVista, Excite and Lycos Web search engines. Describes a method for comparing the recall of the 3 sets of searches, despite the fact that they are carried out on non identical sets of Web pages. It is thus possible, unlike previous comparative studies of Web search engines, to consider both recall and precision when evaluating the effectiveness of search engines

0.011389393 = product of:
  0.0531505 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=7302,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=7302,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 7302, 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=7302)
    0.009368123 = product of:
      0.028104367 = sum of:
        0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028104367 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The evaluation of information retrieval systems is an important yet difficult operation. This paper describes an exploratory evaluation study that takes an interpretive approach to evaluation. The longitudinal study examines evaluation through the information-seeking behaviour of 22 case studies of 'real' users. The eclectic approach to data collection produced behavioral data that is compared with relevance judgements and satisfaction ratings. The study demonstrates considerable variations among the cases, among different evaluation measures within the same case, and among the same measures at different stages within a single case. It is argued that those involved in evaluation should be aware of the difficulties, and base any evaluation on a good understanding of the cases in question

Source

Information processing and management. 30(1994) no.2, S.205-221

0.011341308 = product of:
  0.079389155 = sum of:
    0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 6302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712272 = score(doc=6302,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 6302, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6302)
    0.06226643 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06226643 = score(doc=6302,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6946405 = fieldWeight in 6302, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6302)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Series

The Kluwer International series on information retrieval

Source

Cross-language information retrieval. Ed.: G. Grefenstette

0.010502836 = product of:
  0.04901323 = sum of:
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=3002,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=3002,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3002, 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=3002)
    0.009368123 = product of:
      0.028104367 = sum of:
        0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028104367 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The test of retrieval effectiveness performed on IBM's STAIRS and reported in 'Communications of the ACM' 10 years ago, continues to be cited frequently in the information retrieval literature. The reasons for the study's continuing pertinence to today's research are discussed, and the political, legal, and commercial aspects of the study are presented. In addition, the method of calculating recall that was used in the STAIRS study is discussed in some detail, especially how it reduces the 5 major types of uncertainty in recall estimations. It is also suggested that this method of recall estimation may serve as the basis for recall estimations that might be truly comparable between systems

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.4-22

0.010411931 = product of:
  0.048589014 = sum of:
    0.015953152 = weight(_text_:information in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015953152 = score(doc=2339,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.30666938 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=2339,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.010017214 = product of:
  0.0701205 = sum of:
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=2946,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.05870535 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05870535 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6549133 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The ability to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable levels of retrieval performance and the ability to distinguish between significant and non-significant differences between retrieval result are important to traditional information retrieval experiments. The Monte Carlo method is shown to represent an attractive alternative to the hypergeometric model for identifying the levels at which random retrieval performance is exceeded in retrieval test collections and for overcoming some of the limitations of the hypergeometric model

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.2, S.181-191

0.00982186 = product of:
  0.06875302 = sum of:
    0.01482871 = weight(_text_:information in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01482871 = score(doc=3851,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
    0.053924307 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053924307 = score(doc=3851,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.60157627 = fieldWeight in 3851, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3851)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Describes an intelligent agent based information retrieval model. The relevance matrix used by the intelligent agent consists of rows and columns; rows represent the documents and columns are used for keywords. Entries represent predetermined weights of keywords in documents. The search/query vector is constructed by the intelligent agent through explicit interaction with the user, using an interactive query refinement techniques. With manipulation of the relevance matrix against the search vector, the agent uses the manipulated information to filter the document representations and retrieve the most relevant documents, consequently improving the retrieval performance. Work is in progress on an experiment to compare the retrieval results from a conventional retrieval model and an intelligent agent based retrieval model. A test document collection on artificial intelligence has been selected as a sample. Retrieval tests are being carried out on a selected group of researchers using the 2 retrieval systems. Results will be compared to assess the retrieval performance using precision and recall matrices

Imprint

Oxford : Learned Information

Source

Online information 95: Proceedings of the 19th International online information meeting, London, 5-7 December 1995. Ed.: D.I. Raitt u. B. Jeapes

0.009709007 = product of:
  0.06796305 = sum of:
    0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 6298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712272 = score(doc=6298,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 6298, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6298)
    0.050840326 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050840326 = score(doc=6298,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 6298, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6298)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Series

The Kluwer International series on information retrieval

Source

Cross-language information retrieval. Ed.: G. Grefenstette