Search (128 results, page 4 of 7)

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5090, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5090)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5091)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=716,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of a scientifically sounded approach to search engine evaluation. Nowadays there is a flourishing literature which describes various attempts at conducting such evaluation by following all sort of approaches, but very often only the final results are published with little, if any, information about the methodology and the procedures adopted. These various experiments have been critically investigated and catalogued according to their scientific foundation by Bell [1] in the attempt to provide a valuable framework for future studies in this area. This paper reconsiders some of Bell's ideas in the light of the crisis of classic evaluation techniques for information retrieval and tries to envisage some form of collaboration between the IR and web communities in order to design a better and more consistent platform for the evaluation of tools for interactive information retrieval.

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=817,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of the paper is to put forward a structured mechanism for web search evaluation. The paper seeks to point to useful scientific research and show how information practitioners can use these methods in evaluation of search on the web for their users. Design/methodology/approach - The paper puts forward an approach which utilizes traditional laboratory-based evaluation measures such as average precision/precision at N documents, augmented with diagnostic measures such as link broken, etc., which are used to show why precision measures are depressed as well as the quality of the search engines crawling mechanism. Findings - The paper shows how to use diagnostic measures in conjunction with precision in order to evaluate web search. Practical implications - The methodology presented in this paper will be useful to any information professional who regularly uses web search as part of their information seeking and needs to evaluate web search services. Originality/value - The paper argues that the use of diagnostic measures is essential in web search, as precision measures on their own do not allow a searcher to understand why search results differ between search engines.

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=2023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Is Cross-Language answer finding harder than Monolingual answer finding for users? In this paper we provide initial quantitative and qualitative evidence to answer this question. In our study, which involves 16 users searching questions under four different system conditions, we find that interactive cross-language answer finding is not substantially harder (in terms of accuracy) than its monolingual counterpart, using general purpose Machine Translation systems and standard Information Retrieval machinery, although it takes more time. We have also seen that users need more context to provide accurate answers (full documents) than what is usually considered by systems (paragraphs or passages). Finally, we also discuss the limitations of standard evaluation methodologies for interactive Information Retrieval experiments in the case of cross-language question answering.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.66-81

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 2060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=2060,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2060, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2060)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information retrieval involves finding some desired information in a store of information or a database. In this paper, Co-word analysis will be used to achieve a ranking of a selected sample of FA terms. Based on this ranking a better arranging of search results can be achieved. Experimental results achieved using 41 MB of data (7660 documents) in the field of sports. The corpus was collected from CNN newspaper, sports field. This corpus was chosen to be distributed over 11 sub-fields of the field sports from the experimental results, the average precision increased by 18.3% after applying the proposed arranging scheme depending on the absolute frequency to count the terms weights, and the average precision increased by 17.2% after applying the proposed arranging scheme depending on a formula based on "TF*IDF" to count the terms weights.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.738-755

0.004855188 = product of:
  0.019420752 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 3653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=3653,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3653, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3653)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.004855188 = product of:
  0.019420752 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=3890,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This entry summarizes the history, results, and impact of the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), a workshop series designed to support the information retrieval community by building the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of retrieval technology.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.004797954 = product of:
  0.019191816 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=5585,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users' or user surrogates' assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems-inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster's (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'The Influence of F. W. Lancaster on Information Science and on Libraries', das als Festschrift für F.W. Lancaster deklariert ist.

0.0045416127 = product of:
  0.01816645 = sum of:
    0.01816645 = weight(_text_:information in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01816645 = score(doc=841,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to examine our current knowledge of how searchers perceive and react to the possibility of missing potentially important information whilst searching the web is limited. The study reported here seeks to investigate such perceptions and reactions, and to explore the extent to which Simon's "bounded rationality" theory is useful in illuminating these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Totally 37 academic staff, research staff and research students in three university departments were interviewed about their web searching. The open-ended, semi-structured interviews were inductively analysed. Emergence of the concept of "good enough" searching prompted a further analysis to explore the extent to which the data could be interpreted in terms of Simon's concepts of "bounded rationality" and "satisficing". Findings - The results indicate that the risk of missing potentially important information was a matter of concern to the interviewees. Their estimations of the likely extent and importance of missed information affected decisions by individuals as to when to stop searching - decisions based on very different criteria, which map well onto Simon's concepts. On the basis of the interview data, the authors propose tentative categorizations of perceptions of the risk of missing information including "inconsequential" "tolerable" "damaging" and "disastrous" and search strategies including "perfunctory" "minimalist" "nervous" and "extensive". It is concluded that there is at least a prima facie case for bounded rationality and satisficing being considered as potentially useful concepts in our quest better to understand aspects of human information behaviour. Research limitations/implications - Although the findings are based on a relatively small sample and an exploratory qualitative analysis, it is argued that the study raises a number of interesting questions, and has implications for both the development of theory and practice in the areas of web searching and information literacy. Originality/value - The paper focuses on an aspect of web searching which has not to date been well explored. Whilst research has done much to illuminate searchers' perceptions of what they find on the web, we know relatively little of their perceptions of, and reactions to information that they fail to find. The study reported here provides some tentative models, based on empirical evidence, of these phenomena.

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=4605,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4605, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4605)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study sought to investigate the effects of cognitive style (field dependent and field independent) and on-line database search experience (novice and experienced) on the WWW search performance of undergraduate college students (n=48). It also attempted to find user factors that could be used to predict search efficiency. search performance, the dependent variable was defined in 2 ways: (1) time required for retrieving a relevant information item, and (2) the number of nodes traversed for retrieving a relevant information item. the search tasks required were carried out on a University Web site, and included a factual task and a topical search task of interest to the participant. Results indicated that while cognitive style (FD/FI) significantly influenced the search performance of novice searchers, the influence was greatly reduced in those searchers who had on-line database search experience. Based on the findings, suggestions for possible changes to the design of the current Web interface and to user training programs are provided

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.6, S.558-566

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=1454,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information retrieval performance evaluation is commonly made based an the classical recall and precision based figures or graphs. However, important information indicating causes for variation may remain hidden under the average recall and precision figures. Identifying significant causes for variation can help researchers and developers to focus an opportunities for improvement that underlay the averages. This article presents a case study showing the potential of a statistical repeated measures analysis of variance for testing the significance of factors in retrieval performance variation. The TREC-9 Query Track performance data is used as a case study and the factors studied are retrieval method, topic, and their interaction. The results show that retrieval method, topic, and their interaction are all significant. A topic level analysis is also made to see the nature of variation in the performance of retrieval methods across topics. The observed retrieval performances of expansion runs are truly significant improvements for most of the topics. Analyses of the effect of query expansion an document ranking confirm that expansion affects ranking positively.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.379-391

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=2884,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we focus an the effect of graded relevance an the results of interactive information retrieval (IR) experiments based an assigned search tasks in a test collection. A group of 26 subjects searched for four Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) topics using automatic and interactive query expansion based an relevance feedback. The TREC- and user-suggested pools of relevant documents were reassessed an a four-level relevance scale. The results show that the users could identify nearly all highly relevant documents and about half of the marginal ones. Users also selected a fair number of irrelevant documents for query expansion. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of query expansion is closely related to the searchers' success in retrieving and identifying highly relevant documents for feedback. The implications of the results an interpreting the findings of past experiments with liberal relevance thresholds are also discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.963-969

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=1034,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Search engines play an essential role in the usability of Internet-based information systems and without them the Web would be much less accessible, and at the very least would develop at a much slower rate. Given that non-English users now tend to make up the majority in this environment, our main objective is to analyze and evaluate the retrieval effectiveness of various indexing and search strategies based on test-collections written in four different languages: English, French, German, and Italian. Our second objective is to describe and evaluate various approaches that might be implemented in order to effectively access document collections written in another language. As a third objective, we will explore the underlying problems involved in searching document collections written in the four different languages, and we will suggest and evaluate different database merging strategies capable of providing the user with a single unique result list.

Source

Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.1, S.75-115

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 2062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=2062,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2062, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2062)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Based on a relatively large subset representing one third of the Medline collection, this paper evaluates ten different IR models, including recent developments in both probabilistic and language models. We show that the best performing IR models is a probabilistic model developed within the Divergence from Randomness framework [Amati, G., & van Rijsbergen, C.J. (2002) Probabilistic models of information retrieval based on measuring the divergence from randomness. ACM-Transactions on Information Systems 20(4), 357-389], which result in 170% enhancements in mean average precision when compared to the classical tf idf vector-space model. This paper also reports on our impact evaluations on the retrieval effectiveness of manually assigned descriptors (MeSH or Medical Subject Headings), showing that by including these terms retrieval performance can improve from 2.4% to 13.5%, depending on the underling IR model. Finally, we design a new general blind-query expansion approach showing improved retrieval performances compared to those obtained using the Rocchio approach.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.781-789

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=2065,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The thesis of this study is to propose an extended methodology for laboratory based Information Retrieval evaluation under incomplete relevance assessments. This new methodology aims to identify potential uncertainty during system comparison that may result from incompleteness. The adoption of this methodology is advantageous, because the detection of epistemic uncertainty - the amount of knowledge (or ignorance) we have about the estimate of a system's performance - during the evaluation process can guide and direct researchers when evaluating new systems over existing and future test collections. Across a series of experiments we demonstrate how this methodology can lead towards a finer grained analysis of systems. In particular, we show through experimentation how the current practice in Information Retrieval evaluation of using a measurement depth larger than the pooling depth increases uncertainty during system comparison.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.811-837

0.0044597755 = product of:
  0.017839102 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 2444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=2444,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2444, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2444)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Adaptive information retrieval"

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.6, S.1879-1885

0.0042914203 = product of:
  0.017165681 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=4591,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article addresses a crucial issue in the digital library environment: how to support effective interaction of users with heterogeneous and distributed information resources. In particular, this study compared usability, user preference, effectiveness, and searching behaviors in systems that implement interaction with multiple databases as if they were one (integrated interaction) in a experiment in the TREC environment. 28 volunteers were recruited from the graduate students of the School of Communication, Information & Library Studies at Rutgers University. Significantly more subjects preferred the common interface to the integrated interface, mainly because they could have more control over database selection. Subjects were also more satisfied with the results from the common interface, and performed better with the common interface than with the integrated interface. Overall, it appears that for this population, interacting with databases through a common interface is preferable on all grounds to interacting with databases through an integrated interface. These results suggest that: (1) the general assumption of the information retrieval (IR) literature that an integrated interaction is best needs to be revisited; (2) it is important to allow for more user control in the distributed environment; (3) for digital library purposes, it is important to characterize different databases to support user choice for integration; and (4) certain users prefer control over database selection while still opting for results to be merged

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.456-468

0.0042914203 = product of:
  0.017165681 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 4052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=4052,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4052, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4052)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

SIGIR'04: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference an Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Ed.: K. Järvelin, u.a