Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022876337 = sum of:
  0.010493284 = product of:
    0.041973136 = sum of:
      0.041973136 = weight(_text_:authors in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041973136 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012383052 = product of:
    0.024766104 = sum of:
      0.024766104 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024766104 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288986 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A relevancy-ranking algorithm for a natural language interface to Boolean online public access catalogs (OPACs) was formulated and compared with that currently used in a knowledge-based search interface called the E-Referencer, being developed by the authors. The algorithm makes use of seven weIl-known ranking criteria: breadth of match, section weighting, proximity of query words, variant word forms (stemming), document frequency, term frequency and document length. The algorithm converts a natural language query into a series of increasingly broader Boolean search statements. In a small experiment with ten subjects in which the algorithm was simulated by hand, the algorithm obtained good results with a mean overall precision of 0.42 and mean average precision of 0.62, representing a 27 percent improvement in precision and 41 percent improvement in average precision compared to the E-Referencer. The usefulness of each step in the algorithm was analyzed and suggestions are made for improving the algorithm.

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.0126756625 = product of:
  0.025351325 = sum of:
    0.025351325 = product of:
      0.05070265 = sum of:
        0.05070265 = weight(_text_:b in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05070265 = score(doc=4968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052226946 = queryNorm
            0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Discovery-Systeme bieten meist als Standardeinstellung eine Sortierung nach Relevanz an. Wie die Relevanz ermittelt wird, ist häufig intransparent. Dabei wären Kenntnisse darüber aus Nutzersicht ein wichtiger Faktor in der Informationskompetenz, während Bibliotheken sicherstellen sollten, dass das Ranking zum eigenen Bestand und Publikum passt. In diesem Aufsatz wird dargestellt, wie Discovery-Systeme Treffer auswählen und bewerten. Dazu gehören Indexierung, Prozessierung, Text-Matching und weitere Relevanzkriterien, z. B. Popularität oder Verfügbarkeit. Schließlich müssen alle betrachteten Kriterien zu einem zentralen Score zusammengefasst werden. Ein besonderer Fokus wird auf das Ranking von EBSCO Discovery Service, Primo und Summon gelegt.