Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028299453 = product of:
  0.056598905 = sum of:
    0.056598905 = product of:
      0.11319781 = sum of:
        0.11319781 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11319781 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, 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=6438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

11. 8.2001 16:22:19

0.01552233 = product of:
  0.03104466 = sum of:
    0.03104466 = product of:
      0.09313398 = sum of:
        0.09313398 = weight(_text_:objects in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09313398 = score(doc=3250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31719333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.

0.01552233 = product of:
  0.03104466 = sum of:
    0.03104466 = product of:
      0.09313398 = sum of:
        0.09313398 = weight(_text_:objects in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09313398 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31719333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users' or user surrogates' assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems-inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster's (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.

0.012128337 = product of:
  0.024256675 = sum of:
    0.024256675 = product of:
      0.04851335 = sum of:
        0.04851335 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04851335 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.010106948 = product of:
  0.020213896 = sum of:
    0.020213896 = product of:
      0.040427793 = sum of:
        0.040427793 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040427793 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.010106948 = product of:
  0.020213896 = sum of:
    0.020213896 = product of:
      0.040427793 = sum of:
        0.040427793 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040427793 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38

0.008085558 = product of:
  0.016171116 = sum of:
    0.016171116 = product of:
      0.032342233 = sum of:
        0.032342233 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032342233 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20898253 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059678096 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:48:28