Search (231 results, page 11 of 12)

2.3911135E-4 = product of:
  0.005499561 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=2065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.74-80

2.3911135E-4 = product of:
  0.005499561 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 2032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=2032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 2032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.212-225

2.3911135E-4 = product of:
  0.005499561 = sum of:
    0.005499561 = product of:
      0.010999122 = sum of:
        0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010999122 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.71-88

2.3665889E-4 = product of:
  0.0054431544 = sum of:
    0.0054431544 = product of:
      0.010886309 = sum of:
        0.010886309 = weight(_text_:1 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010886309 = score(doc=5092,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18803683 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

While test collections provide the cornerstone for Cranfield-based evaluation of information retrieval (IR) systems, it has become practically infeasible to rely on traditional pooling techniques to construct test collections at the scale of today's massive document collections (e.g., ClueWeb12's 700M+ Webpages). This has motivated a flurry of studies proposing more cost-effective yet reliable IR evaluation methods. In this paper, we propose a new intelligent topic selection method which reduces the number of search topics (and thereby costly human relevance judgments) needed for reliable IR evaluation. To rigorously assess our method, we integrate previously disparate lines of research on intelligent topic selection and deep vs. shallow judging (i.e., whether it is more cost-effective to collect many relevance judgments for a few topics or a few judgments for many topics). While prior work on intelligent topic selection has never been evaluated against shallow judging baselines, prior work on deep vs. shallow judging has largely argued for shallowed judging, but assuming random topic selection. We argue that for evaluating any topic selection method, ultimately one must ask whether it is actually useful to select topics, or should one simply perform shallow judging over many topics? In seeking a rigorous answer to this over-arching question, we conduct a comprehensive investigation over a set of relevant factors never previously studied together: 1) method of topic selection; 2) the effect of topic familiarity on human judging speed; and 3) how different topic generation processes (requiring varying human effort) impact (i) budget utilization and (ii) the resultant quality of judgments. Experiments on NIST TREC Robust 2003 and Robust 2004 test collections show that not only can we reliably evaluate IR systems with fewer topics, but also that: 1) when topics are intelligently selected, deep judging is often more cost-effective than shallow judging in evaluation reliability; and 2) topic familiarity and topic generation costs greatly impact the evaluation cost vs. reliability trade-off. Our findings challenge conventional wisdom in showing that deep judging is often preferable to shallow judging when topics are selected intelligently.

Source

Information processing and management. 54(2018) no.1, S.37-59

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 3001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=3001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 3001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.50-56

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 6577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=6577,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 6577, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6577)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of the Society of Archivists. 17(1996) no.1, S.27-54

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 7259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=7259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 7259, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Information processing and management. 33(1997) no.1, S.15-36

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Takes a cognitive approach toward understanding the behaviours of end users by focusing on the values or criteria they employ in making relevance judgements, or decisions about whether to obtain and use information. Compares and contrasts the results of 2 empirical studies in which criteria were elicited directly from individuals who were seeking information to resolve their own information problems. In 1 study, respondents were faculty and students in an academic environment examining print documents from traditional text-based information retrieval systems. In the other study, respondents were occupational users of weather-related information in a multimedia environment in which sources included interpersonal communication, mass media, weather instruments, and computerised weather systems. Provides evidence that a finite range of criteria exists and that these criteria are applied consistently across types of information users, problem situation, and source environments

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 3553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=3553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 3553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to test the effect of controlled vocabulary search feature implementation on 2 online systems. Specifically, the study examined retrieval rates using 4 unique controlled vocabulary search features (Explode, major descriptor, descriptor, subheadings). 2 questions were addressed; what, if any, are the general differences between controlled vocabulary system implementations in DIALOG and Ovid; and what, if any are the impacts of each on the differing controlled vocabulary search features upon retrieval rates? Each search feature was applied to to 9 search queries obtained from a medical reference librarian. The same queires were searched in the complete MEDLINE file on the DIALOG and Ovid online host systems. The unique records (those records retrieved in only 1 of the 2 systems) were identified and analyzed. DIALOG produced equal or more records than Ovid in nearly 20% of the queries. Concludes than users need to be aware of system specific designs that may require differing input strategies across different systems for the same unique controlled vocabulary search features. Making recommendations and suggestions for future research

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=4605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

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

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

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.

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

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

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.4-21

2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=2023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

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

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=3004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.37-49

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

There have been 3 Text Retrieval Conferences (TREC) organized by the National Insitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) over the last 3 years which have compared retrieval results on fairly large databases (at least 1 gigabyte). The queries (called topics), relevance judgements and databases were all provided by NIST. The main goal of the tests was to compare various retrieval algorithms using various measures of retrieval effectiveness. When Tague-Sutcliffe performed an analysis of variance on the average precision there is a large group of systems at the top of the ranking which are not significantly different. In addition the queries contribute more to the mean square the systems. To gather further insight into the results, this research investigates the variations in query properties as a partial explanation for the variation in retrieval scores. For each topic statement for the queries, the length (number of content words), langth of various parts and total number of relevant documents are correlated with the average precision

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=4082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Information processing and management. 32(1996) no.1, S.89-104

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=4088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

So far, methods for ellipsis and anaphor resolution have been developed and the effects of anaphor resolution have been analyzed in the context of statistical information retrieval of scientific abstracts. No significant improvements has been observed. Analyzes the effects of ellipsis and anaphor resolution on proximity searching in a full text database. Anaphora and ellipsis are classified on the basis of the type of their correlates / antecedents rather than, as traditional, on the basis of their own linguistic type. The classification differentiates proper names and common nouns of basic words, compound words, and phrases. The study was carried out in a newspaper article database containing 55.000 full text articles. A set of 154 keyword pairs in different categories was created. Human resolution of keyword ellipsis and anaphora was performed to identify sentences and paragraphs which would match proximity searches after resolution. Findings indicate that ellipsis and anaphor resolution is most relevant for proper name phrases and only marginal in the other keyword categories. Therefore the recall effect of restricted resolution of proper name phrases only was analyzed for keyword pairs containing at least 1 proper name phrase. Findings indicate a recall increase of 38.2% in sentence searches, and 28.8% in paragraph searches when proper name ellipsis were resolved. The recall increase was 17.6% sentence searches, and 19.8% in paragraph searches when proper name anaphora were resolved. Some simple and computationally justifiable resolution method might be developed only for proper name phrases to support keyword based full text information retrieval. Discusses elements of such a method

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

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