Search (333 results, page 3 of 17)

0.0025762038 = product of:
  0.015457222 = sum of:
    0.015457222 = weight(_text_:in in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015457222 = score(doc=6936,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The distribution of bibliographic records in on-line bibliographic databases is examined using 14 different search topics. These topics were searched using the DIALOG database host, and using as many suitable databases as possible. The presence of duplicate records in the searches was taken into consideration in the analysis, and the problem with lexical ambiguity in at least one search topic is discussed. The study answers questions such as how many databases are needed in a multifile search for particular topics, and what coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases. The distribution of the percentages of records retrieved over a number of databases for 13 of the 14 search topics roughly fell into three groups: (1) high concentration of records in one database with about 80% coverage in five to eight databases; (2) moderate concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in seven to 10 databases; and (3) low concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in 16 to 19 databases. The study does conform with earlier results, but shows that the number of databases needed for searches with varying complexities of search strategies, is much more topic dependent than previous studies would indicate.

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=2259,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

51 subject searches were performed in an online catalog containing about 4,5 million records. Their success was judges in terms of lists of items, known to be relevant to the various topics, compiled by subject specialists (faculty members or authors of articles in specialized encyclopedias). Many of the items known to be relevant were not retrieved, even in very broad searches that sometimes retrieved several hundred records, and very little could be done to make them retrievable within the constraints of present cataloging practice. Librarians should recognize that library catalogs, as now implemented, offer only the most primitive of subject access and should seek to develop different types of subject access tools. - Vgl auch Letter (B.H. Weinberg) in: LTRS 36(1992) S.123-124.

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=5517,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

89 articles from a small, Danish left-wing newspaper were indexed by PRECIS and KWIC. The articles cover a wide range of social science subjects. Controlled test searches in both indexes were carried out by 20 students of library science. The results obtained from this small-scale retrieval test were evaluated by a chi-square test. The PRECIS index led to more correct answers and fewer wrong answers than the KWIC index, i.e. it had both better recall and greater precision. Furthermore, the students were more confident in their judgement of the relevance of retrieved articles in the PRECIS index than in the KWIC index; and they generally favoured the PRECIS index in the subjective judgement they were asked to make

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 4163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=4163,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 4163, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4163)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

As an introduction to the papers in this special issue, some of the major problems facing in investigators evaluating information retrieval systems are presented. These problems include the question of the necessity of using real users, as opposed to subject experts, in making relevance judgements, the possibility of evaluating individual components of the retrieval process, rather than the process as a whole, the kinds of aggregation that are appropriate for the measures used in evaluating systems, the value of an analytic or simulatory, as opposed to an experimental, approach in evaluation retrieval systems, the difficulties in evaluating interactive systems, and the kind of generalization which are possible from information retrieval tests.

0.0025503114 = product of:
  0.015301868 = sum of:
    0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 2636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015301868 = score(doc=2636,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 2636, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2636)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The frequency of non-informative titles of journal articles was assessed for two fields: library and information science and sociology. The percentage of non informative titles was 21% in the formaer and 15% in the latter. In both fields, the non-informative titles, were concentratein only a few journals. The non-informative titles in library science were derived mainly from non-research journals. IN sociology the reasons for non-informative titles may be more complex; some of these journals are highly cited. For the improvement of retrievaleffiency the adoption of a policy encouraging informative titles (as in journals of chemistry) is recommended.

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 6487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=6487,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 6487, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6487)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=77,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.60-84.

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 6577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=6577,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 6577, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6577)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes an experiment carried out in the City Archives of Oporto, Portugal to test the relative value for information retrieval of controling or not controlling vocabulary in subject indexing. A comparison was made of the results obtained by searching 2 databases covering the same archival documents, one of them without any control in the indexing language and the other with authority control. Results indicate that the database where authority control in subject indexing was used showed better performance and efficiency in information retrieval than the database which used an uncontrolled subject indexing language. A significant complementarity between the databases was found, the addition of the retrievals of one database to those of the other adding considerable advantage. Posits the possibility of creating an archival authority list suitable for use in groups with identical characteristics, such as local archives of judicial groups. Such a list should include broader terms, representing subject classes, which will be subdivided into narrower terms, according to the particular needs of each archives or archival groups

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 7259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=7259,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 7259, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7259)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Computes low performance standards for each query and for the group of queries in 13 traditional and 4 TREC test collections. Predicted by the hypergeometric distribution, the standards represent the highest level of retrieval effectiveness attributable to chance. Compares operational levels of performance for vector-space, ad-hoc-feature-based, probabilistic, and other retrieval models to the standards. The effectiveness of these techniques in small, traditional test collections, can be explained by retrieving a few more relevant documents for most queries than expected by chance. The effectiveness of retrieval techniques in the larger TREC test collections can only be explained by retrieving many more relevant documents for most queries than expected by chance. The discrepancy between deviations form chance in traditional and TREC test collections is due to a decrease in performance standards for large test collections, not to an increase in operational performance. The next generation of information retrieval systems would be enhanced by abandoning uninformative performance summaries and focusing on effectiveness and improvements in effectiveness of individual queries

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=577,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 577, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=577)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.98-110.

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 1930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=1930,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1930, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1930)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.191-204.

0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 1931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=1931,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1931, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1931)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Wiederabgedruckt in: Readings in information retrieval. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones u. P. Willett. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann 1997. S.223-246.

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Advances in library automation and networking. 4(1991), S.55-92

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 3148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=3148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 3148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3148)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 3158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=3158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 3158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3158)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0023797948 = product of:
  0.014278769 = sum of:
    0.014278769 = weight(_text_:in in 3653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014278769 = score(doc=3653,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 3653, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3653)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper is a personal take on the history of evaluation experiments in information retrieval. It describes some of the early experiments that were formative in our understanding, and goes on to discuss the current dominance of TREC (the Text REtrieval Conference) and to assess its impact.

Source

Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist

0.0023611297 = product of:
  0.014166778 = sum of:
    0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 4080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014166778 = score(doc=4080,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4080, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4080)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Information seeking and provision does not occur in a vacuum, but is shaped and affected by the way that individuals convey regard for themselves and for each other. Reports 2 studies that explore the intersection between professional and personal or relational dimensions of intermediary practice during the research phase of a set of online computer search interactions that aim to address user information queries. The 1st study examines and compares, through an interpretative microanalytic approach, explicit and implicit situation defining assumptions contained in the initial talk, or opening moves, of 4 intermediaries in interaction with 2 users each. The 2nd study seeks to verify, quantitatively, interpretative claims developed in the 1st study through an analysis of intermediaries' use of pronouns in the course of their interactions with users. The specific patterns of results gained through this quantitiative study were consistent with those achieved interpretatively in the 1st study. The results of these studies are discussed within a proposed theoretic framework developed from the perspective of a constitutive theory of communication

0.0023611297 = product of:
  0.014166778 = sum of:
    0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014166778 = score(doc=3271,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Takes a cognitive approach toward understanding the behaviours of end users by focusing on the values or criteria they employ in making relevance judgements, or decisions about whether to obtain and use information. Compares and contrasts the results of 2 empirical studies in which criteria were elicited directly from individuals who were seeking information to resolve their own information problems. In 1 study, respondents were faculty and students in an academic environment examining print documents from traditional text-based information retrieval systems. In the other study, respondents were occupational users of weather-related information in a multimedia environment in which sources included interpersonal communication, mass media, weather instruments, and computerised weather systems. Provides evidence that a finite range of criteria exists and that these criteria are applied consistently across types of information users, problem situation, and source environments

0.0023611297 = product of:
  0.014166778 = sum of:
    0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014166778 = score(doc=3760,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Examines the effectiveness of a map and a textual contents list on the navigation performance of subjects with and without prior knowledge of the text topic in hypertext. Subjects used the document to answer 10 questions. the results showed that performance in the map condition was superior to that of the contents list condition, which in turn was superior to that of the hypertext only condition. Knowledgeable subjects performed better than non-knowledgeable subjects, except in the map condition where their performance was equivalent. the results show that non-knowledgeable users tend to rely more heavily on navigational aids than knowledgeable users, and that aids were used primarily during browsing and information retrieval in hypertext