Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032326832 = product of:
  0.12930733 = sum of:
    0.12930733 = weight(_text_:search in 6621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12930733 = score(doc=6621,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.75250614 = fieldWeight in 6621, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6621)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Tests the effectiveness of a thesaurus as a search-aid in free text searching of a full text database. A set of queries was searched against a large full text database of newspaper articles. The thesaurus contained equivalence, hierarchical and associative relationships. Each query was searched in five modes: basic search, synonym search, narrower term search, related term search, and union of all previous searches. The searches were analyzed in terms of relative recall and precision

0.02000121 = product of:
  0.08000484 = sum of:
    0.08000484 = weight(_text_:search in 2050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08000484 = score(doc=2050,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 2050, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2050)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The traditional measures of online searching proficiency (recall and precision) are less appropriate when applied to the searching of full text databases. The pilot study investigated and evaluated 5 measures of overall success in searching a full text data bank. Data was drawn from INQUIRER searches conducted by medical students at North Carolina Univ. at Chapel Hill. INQUIRER ia an online database of facts and concepts in microbiology. The 5 measures were: success/failure; precision; search term overlap; number of search cycles; and time per search. Concludes that the last 4 measures look promising for the evaluation of fact data bases such as ENQUIRER

0.014286577 = product of:
  0.057146307 = sum of:
    0.057146307 = weight(_text_:search in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057146307 = score(doc=4300,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This article reports on an investigation of the search value that subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by professional indexers add to a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI). First, a similar methodology to that developed by Gross et al. (2015) was applied, with keyword searches representing a range of educational topics run on the AEI database with and without its subject indexing. The results indicated that AEI users would also lose, on average, about a quarter of hits per query. Second, an alternative research design was applied in which an experienced literature searcher was asked to find resources on a set of educational topics on an AEI database stripped of its subject indexing and then asked to search for additional resources on the same topics after the subject indexing had been reinserted. In this study, the proportion of additional resources that would have been lost had it not been for the subject indexing was again found to be about a quarter of the total resources found for each topic, on average.

0.00989803 = product of:
  0.03959212 = sum of:
    0.03959212 = weight(_text_:search in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03959212 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Homonymy is known to often cause false drops in free text searching in a full text database. The problem is quite common and difficult to avoid in Finnish, but nobody has examined it before. Reports on a study that examined the frequency of, and solutions to, the homonymy problem, based on searches made in a Finnish full text database containing about 55.000 newspaper articles. The results indicate that homonymy is not a very serious problem in full text searching, with only about 1 search result set out of 4 containing false drops caused by homonymy. Several other reasons for nonrelevance were much more common. However, in some set results there were a considerable number of homonymy errors, so the number seems to be very random. A study was also made into whether homonyms can be disambiguated by syntactic analysis. The result was that 75,2% of homonyms were disambiguated by this method. Verb homonyms were considerably easier to disambiguate than substantives. Although homonymy is not a very big problem it could perhaps easily be eliminated if there was a suitable syntactic analyzer in the IR system

0.008248359 = product of:
  0.032993436 = sum of:
    0.032993436 = weight(_text_:search in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032993436 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.008248359 = product of:
  0.032993436 = sum of:
    0.032993436 = weight(_text_:search in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032993436 = score(doc=3868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)