Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × year_i:[1980 TO 1990}
  1. Pao, M.L.: Retrieval differences between term and citation indexing (1989) 0.12 
    0.11833379 = product of:
  0.23666757 = sum of:
    0.047231287 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047231287 = score(doc=3566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=3566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=3566,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
    0.1397536 = sum of:
      0.024969954 = weight(_text_:on in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024969954 = score(doc=3566,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
      0.11478364 = weight(_text_:line in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11478364 = score(doc=3566,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.4956679 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    A retrieval experiment was conducted to compare on-line searching using terms opposed to citations. This is the first study in which a single data base was used to retrieve two equivalent sets for each query, one using terms found in the bibliographic record to achieve higher recall, and the other using documents. Reports on the use of a second citation searching strategy. Overall, by using both types of search keys, the total recall is increased.
    Source
    Information, knowledge, evolution. Proceedings of the 44th FID congress, Helsinki, 28.8.-1.9.1988. Ed. by S. Koshiala and R. Launo
  2. Hodges, P.R.: Keyword in title indexes : effectiveness of retrieval in computer searches (1983) 0.09 
    0.0852254 = product of:
  0.13636065 = sum of:
    0.058445733 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058445733 = score(doc=5001,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463053 = score(doc=5001,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.019581974 = product of:
      0.039163947 = sum of:
        0.039163947 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039163947 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)
    Abstract
    A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.
    Date
    14. 3.1996 13:22:21
  3. Feng, S.: ¬A comparative study of indexing languages in single and multidatabase searching (1989) 0.05 
    0.053135835 = product of:
  0.21254334 = sum of:
    0.025244808 = weight(_text_:of in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025244808 = score(doc=2494,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
    0.18729854 = sum of:
      0.024969954 = weight(_text_:on in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024969954 = score(doc=2494,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
      0.16232859 = weight(_text_:line in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16232859 = score(doc=2494,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.7009803 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    An experiment was conducted using 3 data bases in library and information science - Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Information Science Abstracts and ERIC - to investigate some of the main factors affecting on-line searching: effectiveness of search vocabularies, combinations of fields searched, and overlaps among databases. Natural language, controlled vocabulary and a mixture of natural language and controlled terms were tested using different fields of bibliographic records. Also discusses a comparative evaluation of single and multi-data base searching, measuring the overlap among data bases and their influence upon on-line searching.
    Source
    Canadian Journal of Information Science. 14(1989) no.2, S.26-46
  4. Salton, G.: Thoughts about modern retrieval technologies (1988) 0.05 
    0.05069307 = product of:
  0.10138614 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=1522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1522, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1522)
    0.042349376 = weight(_text_:use in 1522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042349376 = score(doc=1522,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33491597 = fieldWeight in 1522, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1522)
    0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 1522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022089208 = score(doc=1522,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1522, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1522)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 1522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=1522,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1522, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the National Federation of Astracting and Information Services, Philadelphia, 28 Feb-2 Mar 88. In recent years, the amount and the variety of available machine-readable data, new technologies have been introduced, such as high density storage devices, and fancy graphic displays useful for information transformation and access. New approaches have also been considered for processing the stored data based on the construction of knowledge bases representing the contents and structure of the information, and the use of expert system techniques to control the user-system interactions. Provides a brief evaluation of the new information processing technologies, and of the software methods proposed for information manipulation.
    Source
    Information services and use. 8(1988) no.2/3/4, S.107-113
  5. Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983) 0.05 
    0.05004025 = product of:
  0.1000805 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324033 = score(doc=2417,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.02797425 = product of:
      0.0559485 = sum of:
        0.0559485 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0559485 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Pages
    S.22-25
    Series
    Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol. 20
    Source
    Productivity in the information age : proceedings of the 46th ASIS annual meeting, 1983. Ed.: Raymond F Vondra
  6. Sullivan, M.V.; Borgman, C.L.: Bibliographic searching by end-users and intermediaries : front-end software vs native DIALOG commands (1988) 0.05 
    0.047971137 = product of:
  0.095942274 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=3560,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3560, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3560)
    0.044457585 = weight(_text_:use in 3560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044457585 = score(doc=3560,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35158852 = fieldWeight in 3560, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3560)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 3560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=3560,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 3560, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3560)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 3560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=3560,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3560, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3560)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    40 doctoral student were trained to search INSPEC or ERIC on DIALOG using either the Sci-Mate Menu or native commands. In comparison with 20 control subjects for whom a free search was performed by an intermediary, the experiment subjects were no less satisfied with their retrievals, which were fewer in number but higher in precision than the retrievals produced by the intermediaries. Use of the menu interface did not affect quality of retrieval or user satisfaction, although subjects instructed to use native commands required less training time and interacted more with the data bases than did subjects trained on the Sci-Mate Menu. INSPEC subjects placed a higher monetary value on their searches than did ERIC subjects, indicated that they would make more frequent use of ddata bases in the future, and interacted more with the data base.
    Source
    ASIS '88. Information Technology: planning for the next fifty years. Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Atlanta, Georgia, 23-27.10.1988. Vol.25. Ed. by C.L. Borgman and E.Y.H. Pai
  7. Fidel, R.: Online searching styles : a case-study-based model of searching behavior (1984) 0.04 
    0.04361538 = product of:
  0.08723076 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=1659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=1659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
    0.025046807 = weight(_text_:of in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025046807 = score(doc=1659,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 1659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=1659,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 1659, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    Abstract
    The model of operationalist and conceptualist searching styles describes searching behavior of experienced online searchers. It is based on the systematic observation of five experienced online searchers doing their regular, job-related searches, and on the analysis of 10 to 13 searches conducted by each of them. Operationalist searchers aim at optimal strategies to achieve precise retrieval; they use a large range of system capabilities in their interaction. They preserve the specific meaning of the request, and the aim of their interactions is an answer set representing the request precisely. Conceptualist searchers analyze a request by seeking to fit it into a faceted structure. They first enter the facet that represents the most important aspect of the request. Their search is then centered on retrieving subsets from this primary set by introducing additional facets. In contrast to the operationalists, they are primarily concerned with recall. During the interaction they preserve the faceted structure, but may change the specific meaning of the request. Although not comprehensive, the model aids in recognizing special and individual characteristics of searching behavior which provide explanations of previous research and guidelines for further investigations into the search process
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 35(1984), S.211-221
  8. Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.: Why full-text misses some relevant documents : an analysis of documents not retrieved by CCML or MEDIS (1989) 0.04 
    0.036294796 = product of:
  0.07258959 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
    0.024135707 = weight(_text_:of in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024135707 = score(doc=3564,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
    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
    Source
    ASIS'89. Managing information and technology. Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Washington D.C., 30.10.-2.11.1989. Vol.26. Ed.by J. Katzer and G.B. Newby
  9. Donkersloot, H.B.: Zoeken op titelwoorden : een oderzoek met de on-line publiekscatalogus (1985) 0.03 
    0.033110015 = product of:
  0.26488012 = sum of:
    0.26488012 = sum of:
      0.035312846 = weight(_text_:on in 6204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035312846 = score(doc=6204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 6204, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6204)
      0.22956727 = weight(_text_:line in 6204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22956727 = score(doc=6204,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.9913358 = fieldWeight in 6204, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6204)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  10. Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.: ¬The testing of index language devices (1985) 0.03 
    0.03017741 = product of:
  0.080473095 = sum of:
    0.03733961 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03733961 = score(doc=3643,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29892567 = fieldWeight in 3643, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3643)
    0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 3643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01711173 = score(doc=3643,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 3643, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3643)
    0.026021753 = weight(_text_:of in 3643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026021753 = score(doc=3643,freq=68.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40297103 = fieldWeight in 3643, product of:
          8.246211 = tf(freq=68.0), with freq of:
            68.0 = termFreq=68.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3643)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    A landmark event in the twentieth-century development of subject analysis theory was a retrieval experiment, begun in 1957, by Cyril Cleverdon, Librarian of the Cranfield Institute of Technology. For this work he received the Professional Award of the Special Libraries Association in 1962 and the Award of Merit of the American Society for Information Science in 1970. The objective of the experiment, called Cranfield I, was to test the ability of four indexing systems-UDC, Facet, Uniterm, and Alphabetic-Subject Headings-to retrieve material responsive to questions addressed to a collection of documents. The experiment was ambitious in scale, consisting of eighteen thousand documents and twelve hundred questions. Prior to Cranfield I, the question of what constitutes good indexing was approached subjectively and reference was made to assumptions in the form of principles that should be observed or user needs that should be met. Cranfield I was the first large-scale effort to use objective criteria for determining the parameters of good indexing. Its creative impetus was the definition of user satisfaction in terms of precision and recall. Out of the experiment emerged the definition of recall as the percentage of relevant documents retrieved and precision as the percentage of retrieved documents that were relevant. Operationalizing the concept of user satisfaction, that is, making it measurable, meant that it could be studied empirically and manipulated as a variable in mathematical equations. Much has been made of the fact that the experimental methodology of Cranfield I was seriously flawed. This is unfortunate as it tends to diminish Cleverdon's contribu tion, which was not methodological-such contributions can be left to benchmark researchers-but rather creative: the introduction of a new paradigm, one that proved to be eminently productive. The criticism leveled at the methodological shortcomings of Cranfield I underscored the need for more precise definitions of the variables involved in information retrieval. Particularly important was the need for a definition of the dependent variable index language. Like the definitions of precision and recall, that of index language provided a new way of looking at the indexing process. It was a re-visioning that stimulated research activity and led not only to a better understanding of indexing but also the design of better retrieval systems." Cranfield I was followed by Cranfield II. While Cranfield I was a wholesale comparison of four indexing "systems," Cranfield II aimed to single out various individual factors in index languages, called "indexing devices," and to measure how variations in these affected retrieval performance. The following selection represents the thinking at Cranfield midway between these two notable retrieval experiments.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
  11. Schabas, A.H.: Postcoordinate retrieval : a comparison of two retrieval languages (1982) 0.03 
    0.029207218 = product of:
  0.07788592 = sum of:
    0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050096344 = score(doc=1202,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021168415 = score(doc=1202,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This article reports on a comparison of the postcoordinate retrieval effectiveness of two indexing languages: LCSH and PRECIS. The effect of augmenting each with title words was also studies. The database for the study was over 15.000 UK MARC records. Users returned 5.326 relevant judgements for citations retrieved for 61 SDI profiles, representing a wide variety of subjects. Results are reported in terms of precision and relative recall. Pure/applied sciences data and social science data were analyzed separately. Cochran's significance tests for ratios were used to interpret the findings. Recall emerged as the more important measure discriminating the behavior of the two languages. Addition of title words was found to improve recall of both indexing languages significantly. A direct relationship was observed between recall and exhaustivity. For the social sciences searches, recalls from PRECIS alone and from PRECIS with title words were significantly higher than those from LCSH alone and from LCSH with title words, respectively. Corresponding comparisons for the pure/applied sciences searches revealed no significant differences
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 33(1982), S.32-37
    Theme
    Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
  12. Kilgour, F.G.: Retrieval on information from computerized book texts (1989) 0.03 
    0.02877253 = product of:
  0.07672674 = sum of:
    0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050096344 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2965)
    0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013388081 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2965)
    0.013242318 = product of:
      0.026484637 = sum of:
        0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026484637 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Source
    Academic librarianship past, present, and future. A festschrift in honor of David Kaser: Ed. by J. Richardson u. J.Y. Davis
  13. Robertson, S.E.: ¬The methodology of information retrieval experiment (1981) 0.03 
    0.028078336 = product of:
  0.112313345 = sum of:
    0.09446257 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09446257 = score(doc=3146,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.75622874 = fieldWeight in 3146, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3146)
    0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 3146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017850775 = score(doc=3146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3146)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Source
    Information retrieval experiment. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones
  14. Tague, J.M.: ¬The pragmatics of information retrieval experimentation (1981) 0.03 
    0.028078336 = product of:
  0.112313345 = sum of:
    0.09446257 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09446257 = score(doc=3149,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.75622874 = fieldWeight in 3149, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3149)
    0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 3149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017850775 = score(doc=3149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3149)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Source
    Information retrieval experiment. Ed.: K. Sparck Jones
  15. Lochbaum, K.E.; Streeter, A.R.: Comparing and combining the effectiveness of latent semantic indexing and the ordinary vector space model for information retrieval (1989) 0.03 
    0.025590368 = product of:
  0.06824098 = sum of:
    0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04338471 = score(doc=3458,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
    0.013388081 = weight(_text_:of in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013388081 = score(doc=3458,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 3458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=3458,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3458, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    A retrievalsystem was built to find individuals with appropriate expertise within a large research establishment on the basis of their authored documents. The expert-locating system uses a new method for automatic indexing and retrieval based on singular value decomposition, a matrix decomposition technique related to the factor analysis. Organizational groups, represented by the documents they write, and the terms contained in these documents, are fit simultaneously into a 100-dimensional "semantic" space. User queries are positioned in the semantic space, and the most similar groups are returned to the user. Here we compared the standard vector-space model with this new technique and found that combining the two methods improved performance over either alone. We also examined the effects of various experimental variables on the system`s retrieval accuracy. In particular, the effects of: term weighting functions in the semantic space construction and in query construction, suffix stripping, and using lexical units larger than a a single word were studied.
  16. Blair, D.C.; Maron, M.E.: ¬An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system (1985) 0.02 
    0.024817977 = product of:
  0.09927191 = sum of:
    0.0834939 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0834939 = score(doc=1345,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.6684181 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
    0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015778005 = score(doc=1345,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch : Salton, G.: Another look ... Comm. ACM 29(1986) S.S.648-656; Blair, D.C.: Full text retrieval ... Int. Class. 13(1986) S.18-23: Blair, D.C., M.E. Maron: Full-text information retrieval ... Inf. proc. man. 26(1990) S.437-447.
    Source
    Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery. 28(1985), S.280-299
  17. Information retrieval experiment (1981) 0.02 
    0.023233967 = product of:
  0.09293587 = sum of:
    0.07731644 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07731644 = score(doc=2653,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.61896384 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=2653,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: ROBERTSON, S.E.: The methodology of information retrieval experiment; RIJSBERGEN, C.J. van: Retrieval effectiveness; BELKIN, N.: Ineffable concepts in information retrieval; TAGUE, J.M.: The pragmatics of information retrieval experimentation; LANCASTER, F.W.: Evaluation within the environment of an operating information service; BARRACLOUGH, E.D.: Opportunities for testing with online systems; KEEN, M.E.: Laboratory tests of manual systems; ODDY, R.N.: Laboratory tests: automatic systems; HEINE, M.D.: Simulation, and simulation experiments; COOPER, W.S.: Gedanken experimentation: an alternative to traditional system testing?; SPARCK JONES, K.: Actual tests - retrieval system tests; EVANS, L.: An experiment: search strategy variation in SDI profiles; SALTON, G.: The Smart environment for retrieval system evaluation - advantage and problem areas
  18. Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.; Slough, M.: ¬A comparison of indexing and full-text for the retrieval of clinical medical literature (1988) 0.02 
    0.022408273 = product of:
  0.059755392 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=3563,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3563, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3563)
    0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 3563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017710768 = score(doc=3563,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3563, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3563)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 3563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=3563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3563, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The availability of two full text data bases in the clinical medical journal literature, MEDIS from Mead Data Central and CCML from BRS Information Technologies, provided an opportunity to compare the efficacy of the full text to the traditional, indexed system, MEDLINE for retrieval effectiveness. 100 searches were solicited from an academic health sciences library and the request were searched on all 3 data bases. The results were compared and preliminary analysis suggests that the full text data bases retrieve a greater number of relevant citations and MEDLINE achieves higher precision.
    Source
    ASIS'88. Information technology: planning for the next fifty years. Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Atlanta, Georgia, 23-27.10.1988. Vol.25. Ed. by C.L. Borgman and E.Y.H. Pai
  19. Pao, M.L.; Worthen, D.B.: Retrieval effectiveness by semantic and citation searching (1989) 0.02 
    0.021915603 = product of:
  0.05844161 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=2288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
    0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016396983 = score(doc=2288,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
    0.006621159 = product of:
      0.013242318 = sum of:
        0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013242318 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    A pilot study on the relative retrieval effectiveness of semantic relevance (by terms) and pragmatic relevance (by citations) is reported. A single database has been constructed to provide access by both descriptors and cited references. For each question from a set of queries, two equivalent sets were retrieved. All retrieved items were evaluated by subject experts for relevance to their originating queries. We conclude that there are essentially two types of relevance at work resulting in two different sets of documents. Using both search methods to create a union set is likely to increase recall. Those few retrieved by the intersection of the two methods tend to result in higher precision. Suggestions are made to develop a front-end system to display the overlapping items for higher precision and to manipulate and rank the union set sets retrieved by the two search modes for improved output
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.226-235
  20. Gordon, M.; Kochen, M.: Recall-precision trade-off : a derivation (1989) 0.02 
    0.02160028 = product of:
  0.057600744 = sum of:
    0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025048172 = score(doc=4160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
    0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023188837 = score(doc=4160,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=4160,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The inexact nature of documnet retrieval gives rise to a fundamental recall precision trade-off: generally, recall improves at the expense of precision, or precision improves at the expense of recall. This trade-off os borne out emipically and has qualitatively intuitive explanations. In this article, we explore this realtionship mathematically to explain it further. We see that the recall-precision trade-off hinges on a declaration in the proportion of relevant documents which are retrieved, successively, over time. Futher we examine several mathematical functions sharing this property and conclude that the equation that best modealls recall as a function of time is a logarhitm of a quadratic function. Our conclusion meets the following requirements: the function we derive predicts non-decreasing recall over time until the last relevant document is retrieved (regardless of the density of relevant documents in the collection) without imposing any artificial restrictions on either what percentage of the collection would need to be examined to achieve perfect recall or what the level of precision would be at that time. Other models examined fail to meet oner or more of these criteria.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989) no.3, S.145-151

Authors

Languages

  • e 44
  • d 2
  • nl 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 41
  • s 5
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes