Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × theme_ss:"Volltextretrieval"
  • × year_i:[1980 TO 1990}
  1. Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.: Why full-text misses some relevant documents : an analysis of documents not retrieved by CCML or MEDIS (1989) 0.02 
    0.01767627 = product of:
  0.03535254 = sum of:
    0.03535254 = sum of:
      0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0046998835 = score(doc=3564,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
      0.030652655 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030652655 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13204344 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037706986 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, 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=3564)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Searches conducted as part of the MEDLINE/Full-Text Research Project revealed that the full-text data bases of clinical medical journal articles (CCML (Comprehensive Core Medical Library) from BRS Information Technologies, and MEDIS from Mead Data Central) did not retrieve all the relevant citations. An analysis of the data indicated that 204 relevant citations were retrieved only by MEDLINE. A comparison of the strategies used on the full-text data bases with the text of the articles of these 204 citations revealed that 2 reasons contributed to these failure. The searcher often constructed a restrictive strategy which resulted in the loss of relevant documents; and as in other kinds of retrieval, the problems of natural language caused the loss of relevant documents.
    Date
    9. 1.1996 10:22:31
  2. Bernstein, L.M.; Williamson, R.E.: Testing of a natural language retrieval system for a full text knowledge base (1984) 0.00 
    0.003357759 = product of:
  0.006715518 = sum of:
    0.006715518 = product of:
      0.013431036 = sum of:
        0.013431036 = weight(_text_:a in 1803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013431036 = score(doc=1803,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 1803, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1803)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  3. Blair, D.C.; Maron, M.E.: ¬An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system (1985) 0.00 
    0.0019582848 = product of:
  0.0039165695 = sum of:
    0.0039165695 = product of:
      0.007833139 = sum of:
        0.007833139 = weight(_text_:a in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007833139 = score(doc=1345,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  4. Blair, D.C.: Full text retrieval : Evaluation and implications (1986) 0.00 
    0.0014390396 = product of:
  0.0028780792 = sum of:
    0.0028780792 = product of:
      0.0057561584 = sum of:
        0.0057561584 = weight(_text_:a in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057561584 = score(doc=2047,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Recently, a detailed evaluation of a large, operational full-text document retrieval system was reported in the literature. Values of precision and recall were estimated usind traditional statistical sampling methods and blind evaluation procedures. The results of this evaluation demonstrated that the system tested was retrieving less then 20% of the relevant documents when the searchers believed it was retrieving over 75% of the relevant documents. This evaluation is described including some data not reported in the original article. Also discussed are the implications which this study has for how the subjects of documents should be represented, as well as the importance of rigorous retrieval evaluations for the furtherhance of information retrieval research
    Type
    a

Authors

Types