Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Belkin, N.J.: ¬An overview of results from Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval (1998) 0.02
    0.021508453 = product of:
      0.08603381 = sum of:
        0.029504994 = weight(_text_:computer in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029504994 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
        0.05652882 = sum of:
          0.029437674 = weight(_text_:resources in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.029437674 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.14598069 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
                0.039991006 = queryNorm
              0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
          0.027091147 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027091147 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.039991006 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Source
    Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al
  2. Wood, F.; Ford, N.; Miller, D.; Sobczyk, G.; Duffin, R.: Information skills, searching behaviour and cognitive styles for student-centred learning : a computer-assisted learning approach (1996) 0.02
    0.019394916 = product of:
      0.07757966 = sum of:
        0.061324976 = weight(_text_:computer in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061324976 = score(doc=4341,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.41961014 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
        0.016254688 = product of:
          0.032509375 = sum of:
            0.032509375 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032509375 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.039991006 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4341, 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=4341)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Undergraduates were tested to establish how they searched databases, the effectiveness of their searches and their satisfaction with them. The students' cognitive and learning styles were determined by the Lancaster Approaches to Studying Inventory and Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis tests. There were significant differences in the searching behaviour and the effectiveness of the searches carried out by students with different learning and cognitive styles. Computer-assisted learning (CAL) packages were developed for three departments. The effectiveness of the packages were evaluated. Significant differences were found in the ways students with different learning styles used the packages. Based on the experience gained, guidelines for the teaching of information skills and the production and use of packages were prepared. About 2/3 of the searches had serious weaknesses, indicating a need for effective training. It appears that choice of searching strategies, search effectiveness and use of CAL packages are all affected by the cognitive and learning styles of the searcher. Therefore, students should be made aware of their own styles and, if appropriate, how to adopt more effective strategies
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92
    Theme
    Computer Based Training
  3. Hodges, P.R.: Keyword in title indexes : effectiveness of retrieval in computer searches (1983) 0.02
    0.019345177 = product of:
      0.07738071 = sum of:
        0.058416907 = weight(_text_:computer in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058416907 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.39971197 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
        0.018963803 = product of:
          0.037927605 = sum of:
            0.037927605 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037927605 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.039991006 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    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
  4. Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996) 0.02
    0.017220227 = product of:
      0.06888091 = sum of:
        0.04720799 = weight(_text_:computer in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04720799 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
        0.021672918 = product of:
          0.043345835 = sum of:
            0.043345835 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043345835 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.039991006 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Source
    Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
  5. Smeaton, A.F.; Harman, D.: ¬The TREC experiments and their impact on Europe (1997) 0.02
    0.016392933 = product of:
      0.13114347 = sum of:
        0.13114347 = weight(_text_:europe in 7702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13114347 = score(doc=7702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24358861 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.5383809 = fieldWeight in 7702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7702)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
  6. Becks, D.; Mandl, T.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Spezielle Anforderungen bei der Evaluierung von Patent-Retrieval-Systemen (2010) 0.02
    0.015518518 = product of:
      0.124148145 = sum of:
        0.124148145 = weight(_text_:property in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124148145 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25336683 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.4899937 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    Innerhalb der informationswissenschaftlich geprägten Fachinformation nimmt die Patentdomäne eine gewisse Sonderstellung ein, da sie über eine Reihe von Besonderheiten verfügt, die es notwendig machen, die klassischen Methoden der Bewertung zu überarbeiten bzw. zu adaptieren. Dies belegen unter anderem die Ergebnisse des Intellectual Property Track, der seit 2009 im Rahmen der Evaluierungskampagne CLEF stattfindet. Der vorliegende Artikel beschreibt die innerhalb des zuvor genannten Track erzielten Ergebnisse. Darüber hinaus werden die Konsequenzen für die Evaluierung von Patent-Retrieval-Systemen herausgearbeitet.
  7. MacCall, S.L.; Cleveland, A.D.; Gibson, I.E.: Outline and preliminary evaluation of the classical digital library model (1999) 0.01
    0.013749693 = product of:
      0.05499877 = sum of:
        0.029504994 = weight(_text_:computer in 6541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029504994 = score(doc=6541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 6541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6541)
        0.025493775 = product of:
          0.05098755 = sum of:
            0.05098755 = weight(_text_:resources in 6541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05098755 = score(doc=6541,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.14598069 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.039991006 = queryNorm
                0.349276 = fieldWeight in 6541, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6541)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The growing number of networked information resources and services offers unprecedented opportunities for delivering high quality information to the computer desktop of a wide range of individuals. However, currently there is a reliance on a database retrieval model, in which endusers use keywords to search large collections of automatically indexed resources in order to find needed information. As an alternative to the database retrieval model, this paper outlines the classical digital library model, which is derived from traditional practices of library and information science professionals. These practices include the selection and organization of information resources for local populations of users and the integration of advanced information retrieval tools, such as databases and the Internet into these collections. To evaluate this model, library and information professionals and endusers involved with primary care medicine were asked to respond to a series of questions comparing their experiences with a digital library developed for the primary care population to their experiences with general Internet use. Preliminary results are reported
  8. Gordon, M.; Kochen, M.: Recall-precision trade-off : a derivation (1989) 0.01
    0.013301588 = product of:
      0.1064127 = sum of:
        0.1064127 = weight(_text_:property in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1064127 = score(doc=4160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25336683 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.4199946 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.335595 = idf(docFreq=212, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    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.
  9. Crestani, F.; Rijsbergen, C.J. van: Information retrieval by imaging (1996) 0.01
    0.01291517 = product of:
      0.05166068 = sum of:
        0.035405993 = weight(_text_:computer in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035405993 = score(doc=6967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.24226204 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
        0.016254688 = product of:
          0.032509375 = sum of:
            0.032509375 = weight(_text_:22 in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032509375 = score(doc=6967,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.039991006 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6967, 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=6967)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Source
    Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
  10. Kwok, K.L.: ¬A network approach to probabilistic information retrieval (1995) 0.01
    0.011383288 = product of:
      0.0910663 = sum of:
        0.0910663 = weight(_text_:network in 5696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0910663 = score(doc=5696,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.51133573 = fieldWeight in 5696, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5696)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    Shows how probabilistic information retrieval based on document components may be implemented as a feedforward (feedbackward) artificial neural network. The network supports adaptation of connection weights as well as the growing of new edges between queries and terms based on user relevance feedback data for training, and it reflects query modification and expansion in information retrieval. A learning rule is applied that can also be viewed as supporting sequential learning using a harmonic sequence learning rate. Experimental results with 4 standard small collections and a large Wall Street Journal collection show that small query expansion levels of about 30 terms can achieve most of the gains at the low-recall high-precision region, while larger expansion levels continue to provide gains at the high-recall low-precision region of a precision recall curve
  11. Buckland, M.K.: Partnerships in navigation : an information retrieval research agenda (1995) 0.01
    0.010843484 = product of:
      0.08674787 = sum of:
        0.08674787 = weight(_text_:network in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08674787 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17809492 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.48708782 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    The transition from searching in a single database to searching a multiplicity of networked databases exacerbates some old difficulties in the design and evaluation of retrieval systems and creates new one. A networked environment calls into question the traditional definitions of recall and relevance. Efficient network searching raises questions about where to look first, where to look next and when to stop searching. The need for 'entry vocabulary' support and the need for support in moving from one system vocabulary to another are increased by the increased use of more different databases. The network environment offers the option of collecting different representations of the same object and merging them into an extended record
  12. Schabas, A.H.: ¬A comparative evaluation of the retrieval effectiveness of titles, Library of Congress Subject Headings and PRECIS strings for computer searching of UK MARC data (1979) 0.01
    0.008851498 = product of:
      0.07081199 = sum of:
        0.07081199 = weight(_text_:computer in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07081199 = score(doc=5277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.48452407 = fieldWeight in 5277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5277)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
  13. Salton, G.; Lesk, M.E.: Computer evaluation of indexing and text processing (1968) 0.01
    0.008851498 = product of:
      0.07081199 = sum of:
        0.07081199 = weight(_text_:computer in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07081199 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.48452407 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
  14. Borlund, P.: Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems (2000) 0.01
    0.008345272 = product of:
      0.06676218 = sum of:
        0.06676218 = weight(_text_:computer in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06676218 = score(doc=2556,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.45681366 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    LCSH
    Interactive computer systems / Evaluation
    Subject
    Interactive computer systems / Evaluation
  15. Dunlop, M.D.; Johnson, C.W.; Reid, J.: Exploring the layers of information retrieval evaluation (1998) 0.01
    0.0073021133 = product of:
      0.058416907 = sum of:
        0.058416907 = weight(_text_:computer in 3762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058416907 = score(doc=3762,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.39971197 = fieldWeight in 3762, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3762)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    Presents current work on modelling interactive information retrieval systems and users' interactions with them. Analyzes the papers in this special issue in the context of evaluation in information retrieval (IR) by examining the different layers at which IR use could be evaluated. IR poses the double evaluation problem of evaluating both the underlying system effectiveness and the overall ability of the system to aid users. The papers look at different issues in combining human-computer interaction (HCI) research with IR research and provide insights into the problem of evaluating the information seeking process
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section of articles related to human-computer interaction and information retrieval
  16. Tonta, Y.: Analysis of search failures in document retrieval systems : a review (1992) 0.01
    0.0059009986 = product of:
      0.04720799 = sum of:
        0.04720799 = weight(_text_:computer in 4611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04720799 = score(doc=4611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 4611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4611)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Source
    Public-access computer systems review. 3(1992) no.1, S.4-53
  17. Gilchrist, A.: Research and consultancy (1998) 0.01
    0.0059009986 = product of:
      0.04720799 = sum of:
        0.04720799 = weight(_text_:computer in 1394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04720799 = score(doc=1394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 1394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1394)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    State of the art review of literature published about research and consultancy in library and information science (LIS). Issues covered include: scope and definitions of what constitutes research and consultancy; funding of research and development; national LIS research and the funding agencies; electronic libraries; document delivery; multimedia document delivery; the Z39.50 standard for client server computer architecture, the Internet and WWW; electronic publishing; information retrieval; evaluation and evaluation techniques; the Text Retrieval Conferences (TREC); the user domain; management issues; decision support systems; information politics and organizational culture; and value for money issues
  18. Keen, E.M.: Aspects of computer-based indexing languages (1991) 0.01
    0.0059009986 = product of:
      0.04720799 = sum of:
        0.04720799 = weight(_text_:computer in 5072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04720799 = score(doc=5072,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.32301605 = fieldWeight in 5072, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5072)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
  19. Davis, C.H.: From document retrieval to Web browsing : some universal concerns (1997) 0.01
    0.0051633734 = product of:
      0.041306987 = sum of:
        0.041306987 = weight(_text_:computer in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041306987 = score(doc=399,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1461475 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039991006 = queryNorm
            0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Abstract
    Computer based systems can produce enourmous retrieval sets even when good search logic is used. Sometimes this is desirable, more often it is not. Appropriate filters can limit search results, but they represent only a partial solution. Simple ranking techniques are needed that are both effective and easily understood by the humans doing the searching. Optimal search output, whether from a traditional database or the Internet, will result when intuitive interfaces are designed that inspire confidence while making the necessary mathematics transparent. Weighted term searching using powers of 2, a technique proposed early in the history of information retrieval, can be simplifies and used in combination with modern graphics and textual input to achieve these results
  20. Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984) 0.00
    0.0047409507 = product of:
      0.037927605 = sum of:
        0.037927605 = product of:
          0.07585521 = sum of:
            0.07585521 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07585521 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1400417 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.039991006 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.125 = coord(1/8)
    
    Date
    20.10.2000 12:22:23

Years

Languages

  • e 64
  • d 5
  • f 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 62
  • m 6
  • s 4
  • el 2
  • d 1
  • More… Less…