Search (464 results, page 1 of 24)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Becks, D.; Mandl, T.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Spezielle Anforderungen bei der Evaluierung von Patent-Retrieval-Systemen (2010) 0.04 
    0.039103523 = product of:
  0.078207046 = sum of:
    0.07601224 = weight(_text_:da in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07601224 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20483522 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7981725 = idf(docFreq=990, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04269026 = queryNorm
        0.3710897 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7981725 = idf(docFreq=990, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
    0.0021948046 = product of:
      0.004389609 = sum of:
        0.004389609 = weight(_text_:a in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004389609 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04269026 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
    Type
    a
  2. Wartena, C.; Golub, K.: Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext des Information Retrievals (2021) 0.03 
    0.027931087 = product of:
  0.055862173 = sum of:
    0.054294456 = weight(_text_:da in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054294456 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20483522 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7981725 = idf(docFreq=990, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04269026 = queryNorm
        0.26506406 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7981725 = idf(docFreq=990, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
    0.0015677174 = product of:
      0.0031354348 = sum of:
        0.0031354348 = weight(_text_:a in 376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0031354348 = score(doc=376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04269026 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag möchte einen Überblick über die in der Literatur diskutierten Möglichkeiten, Herausforderungen und Grenzen geben, Retrieval als eine extrinsische Evaluierungsmethode für die Ergebnisse verbaler Sacherschließung zu nutzen. Die inhaltliche Erschließung im Allgemeinen und die Verschlagwortung im Besonderen können intrinsisch oder extrinsisch evaluiert werden. Die intrinsische Evaluierung bezieht sich auf Eigenschaften der Erschließung, von denen vermutet wird, dass sie geeignete Indikatoren für die Qualität der Erschließung sind, wie formale Einheitlichkeit (im Hinblick auf die Anzahl zugewiesener Deskriptoren pro Dokument, auf die Granularität usw.), Konsistenz oder Übereinstimmung der Ergebnisse verschiedener Erschließer:innen. Bei einer extrinsischen Evaluierung geht es darum, die Qualität der gewählten Deskriptoren daran zu messen, wie gut sie sich tatsächlich bei der Suche bewähren. Obwohl die extrinsische Evaluierung direktere Auskunft darüber gibt, ob die Erschließung ihren Zweck erfüllt, und daher den Vorzug verdienen sollte, ist sie kompliziert und oft problematisch. In einem Retrievalsystem greifen verschiedene Algorithmen und Datenquellen in vielschichtiger Weise ineinander und interagieren bei der Evaluierung darüber hinaus noch mit Nutzer:innen und Rechercheaufgaben. Die Evaluierung einer Komponente im System kann nicht einfach dadurch vorgenommen werden, dass man sie austauscht und mit einer anderen Komponente vergleicht, da die gleiche Ressource oder der gleiche Algorithmus sich in unterschiedlichen Umgebungen unterschiedlich verhalten kann. Wir werden relevante Evaluierungsansätze vorstellen und diskutieren, und zum Abschluss einige Empfehlungen für die Evaluierung von Verschlagwortung im Kontext von Retrieval geben.
    Type
    a
  3. Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990) 0.02 
    0.023347715 = product of:
  0.09339086 = sum of:
    0.09339086 = sum of:
      0.01241569 = weight(_text_:a in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01241569 = score(doc=5089,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.08097517 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08097517 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, 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=5089)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:43:54
    Type
    a
  4. Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984) 0.02 
    0.022438597 = product of:
  0.08975439 = sum of:
    0.08975439 = sum of:
      0.008779218 = weight(_text_:a in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008779218 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.08097517 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08097517 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20.10.2000 12:22:23
    Type
    a
  5. Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Parker, J.: Maximizing relevant retrieval : keyword and natural language searching (1998) 0.02 
    0.022438597 = product of:
  0.08975439 = sum of:
    0.08975439 = sum of:
      0.008779218 = weight(_text_:a in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008779218 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6418)
      0.08097517 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08097517 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, 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=6418)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58
    Type
    a
  6. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.02 
    0.022438597 = product of:
  0.08975439 = sum of:
    0.08975439 = sum of:
      0.008779218 = weight(_text_:a in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008779218 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
      0.08097517 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08097517 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, 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=6438)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
    Type
    a
  7. Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983) 0.02 
    0.016676938 = product of:
  0.06670775 = sum of:
    0.06670775 = sum of:
      0.00886835 = weight(_text_:a in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00886835 = score(doc=2417,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.057839405 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057839405 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Pages
    S.22-25
    Type
    a
  8. Allan, J.; Callan, J.P.; Croft, W.B.; Ballesteros, L.; Broglio, J.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.: INQUERY at TREC-5 (1997) 0.02 
    0.016027568 = product of:
  0.06411027 = sum of:
    0.06411027 = sum of:
      0.0062708696 = weight(_text_:a in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0062708696 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
      0.057839405 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057839405 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3103, 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=3103)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:55:22
    Type
    a
  9. Ng, K.B.; Loewenstern, D.; Basu, C.; Hirsh, H.; Kantor, P.B.: Data fusion of machine-learning methods for the TREC5 routing tak (and other work) (1997) 0.02 
    0.016027568 = product of:
  0.06411027 = sum of:
    0.06411027 = sum of:
      0.0062708696 = weight(_text_:a in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0062708696 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
      0.057839405 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057839405 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, 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=3107)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:59:22
    Type
    a
  10. Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬A test for the separation of relevant and non-relevant documents in experimental retrieval collections (1973) 0.01 
    0.014639968 = product of:
  0.058559872 = sum of:
    0.058559872 = sum of:
      0.012288346 = weight(_text_:a in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012288346 = score(doc=5002,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
      0.046271525 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046271525 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5002, 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=5002)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Many retrievalexperiments are intended to discover ways of improving performance, taking the results obtained with some particular technique as a baseline. The fact that substantial alterations to a system often have little or no effect on particular collections is puzzling. This may be due to the initially poor seperation of relevant and non-relevant documents. The paper presents a procedure for characterizing this seperation for a collection, which can be used to show whether proposed modifications of the base system are likely to be useful.
    Date
    19. 3.1996 11:22:12
    Type
    a
  11. Pemberton, J.K.; Ojala, M.; Garman, N.: Head to head : searching the Web versus traditional services (1998) 0.01 
    0.0137401745 = product of:
  0.054960698 = sum of:
    0.054960698 = sum of:
      0.008689173 = weight(_text_:a in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008689173 = score(doc=3572,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3572, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3572)
      0.046271525 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046271525 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Describes of 3 searches on the topic of virtual communities done on the WWW using HotBot and traditional databases using LEXIS-NEXIS and ABI/Inform. Concludes that the WWW is a good starting place for a broad concept search but the traditional services are better for more precise topics
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28
    Type
    a
  12. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.01 
    0.0137401745 = product of:
  0.054960698 = sum of:
    0.054960698 = sum of:
      0.008689173 = weight(_text_:a in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008689173 = score(doc=261,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
      0.046271525 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046271525 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die deutschen Suchmaschinen, Abacho, Acoon, Fireball und Lycos sowie die Web-Kataloge Web.de und Yahoo! werden einem Qualitätstest nach relativem Recall, Precision und Availability unterzogen. Die Methoden der Retrievaltests werden vorgestellt. Im Durchschnitt werden bei einem Cut-Off-Wert von 25 ein Recall von rund 22%, eine Precision von knapp 19% und eine Verfügbarkeit von 24% erreicht
    Type
    a
  13. Lohmann, H.: KASCADE: Dokumentanreicherung und automatische Inhaltserschließung : Projektbericht und Ergebnisse des Retrievaltests (2000) 0.01 
    0.013437194 = product of:
  0.053748775 = sum of:
    0.053748775 = weight(_text_:da in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053748775 = score(doc=494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20483522 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7981725 = idf(docFreq=990, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04269026 = queryNorm
        0.26240006 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7981725 = idf(docFreq=990, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Da sich mit jedem Dokument, das zu dem im Gewichtungsverfahren befindlichen Gesamtbestand hinzukommt, die Werte aller bereits gewichteten Deskriptoren ändern können, müsste die Berechnung der Häufigkeitsverteilung jeder Grundform im Prinzip nach jeder Änderung im Dokumentbestand neu berechnet werden. Eine Online-Aktualisierung des Bestandes erscheint daher wenig sinnvoll. In der Praxis könnte eine Neuberechnung in bestimmten zeitlichen Abständen mit einem Abzug des OPAC-Bestandes unabhängig vom eigentlichen Betrieb des OPAC erfolgen, was auch insofern genügen würde, als die zugrunde liegenden Maße auf relativen Häufigkeiten basieren. Dadurch würde nur ein geringer Verzug in der Bereitstellung der aktuellen Gewichte eintreten. Außerdem würde der Zeitfaktor eine nur untergeordnete Rolle spielen, da ein offline ablaufender Gewichtungslauf erst bis zum nächsten Aktualisierungszeitpunkt abgeschlossen sein müsste. Denkbar wäre zusätzlich, für die Zeit zwischen zwei Aktualisierungen des OPACs für die in den Neuzugängen enthaltenen Begriffe Standardgewichte einzusetzen, soweit diese Begriffe bereits in dem Bestand auftreten. Bei entsprechender Optimierung und Rationalisierung der SELIX-Verfahrensabläufe, Nutzung der Gewichte auf der Retrievalseite für ein Ranking der auszugebenden Dokumente und Integration der THEAS-Komponente kann das Verfahren zu einem wirkungsvollen Instrument zur Verbesserung der Retrievaleffektivität weiterentwickelt werden.
  14. Blagden, J.F.: How much noise in a role-free and link-free co-ordinate indexing system? (1966) 0.01 
    0.013025349 = product of:
  0.052101396 = sum of:
    0.052101396 = sum of:
      0.011613814 = weight(_text_:a in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011613814 = score(doc=2718,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
      0.040487584 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040487584 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2718, 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=2718)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A study of the number of irrelevant documents retrieved in a co-ordinate indexing system that does not employ eitherr roles or links. These tests were based on one hundred actual inquiries received in the library and therefore an evaluation of recall efficiency is not included. Over half the enquiries produced no noise, but the mean average percentage niose figure was approximately 33 per cent based on a total average retireval figure of eighteen documents per search. Details of the size of the indexed collection, methods of indexing, and an analysis of the reasons for the retrieval of irrelevant documents are discussed, thereby providing information officers who are thinking of installing such a system with some evidence on which to base a decision as to whether or not to utilize these devices
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 22(1966), S.203-209
    Type
    a
  15. Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996) 0.01 
    0.012822055 = product of:
  0.05128822 = sum of:
    0.05128822 = sum of:
      0.0050166957 = weight(_text_:a in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0050166957 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
      0.046271525 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046271525 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Type
    a
  16. Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997) 0.01 
    0.012822055 = product of:
  0.05128822 = sum of:
    0.05128822 = sum of:
      0.0050166957 = weight(_text_:a in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0050166957 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
      0.046271525 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.046271525 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 744, 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=744)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
    Type
    a
  17. Losee, R.M.: Determining information retrieval and filtering performance without experimentation (1995) 0.01 
    0.012575762 = product of:
  0.05030305 = sum of:
    0.05030305 = sum of:
      0.009815465 = weight(_text_:a in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009815465 = score(doc=3368,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
      0.040487584 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040487584 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3368, 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=3368)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The performance of an information retrieval or text and media filtering system may be determined through analytic methods as well as by traditional simulation or experimental methods. These analytic methods can provide precise statements about expected performance. They can thus determine which of 2 similarly performing systems is superior. For both a single query terms and for a multiple query term retrieval model, a model for comparing the performance of different probabilistic retrieval methods is developed. This method may be used in computing the average search length for a query, given only knowledge of database parameter values. Describes predictive models for inverse document frequency, binary independence, and relevance feedback based retrieval and filtering. Simulation illustrate how the single term model performs and sample performance predictions are given for single term and multiple term problems
    Date
    22. 2.1996 13:14:10
    Type
    a
  18. Smithson, S.: Information retrieval evaluation in practice : a case study approach (1994) 0.01 
    0.0123167 = product of:
  0.0492668 = sum of:
    0.0492668 = sum of:
      0.008779218 = weight(_text_:a in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008779218 = score(doc=7302,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
      0.040487584 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040487584 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7302, 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=7302)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The evaluation of information retrieval systems is an important yet difficult operation. This paper describes an exploratory evaluation study that takes an interpretive approach to evaluation. The longitudinal study examines evaluation through the information-seeking behaviour of 22 case studies of 'real' users. The eclectic approach to data collection produced behavioral data that is compared with relevance judgements and satisfaction ratings. The study demonstrates considerable variations among the cases, among different evaluation measures within the same case, and among the same measures at different stages within a single case. It is argued that those involved in evaluation should be aware of the difficulties, and base any evaluation on a good understanding of the cases in question
    Type
    a
  19. Hodges, P.R.: Keyword in title indexes : effectiveness of retrieval in computer searches (1983) 0.01 
    0.011673857 = product of:
  0.04669543 = sum of:
    0.04669543 = sum of:
      0.006207845 = weight(_text_:a in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006207845 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.040487584 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040487584 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Type
    a
  20. Brown, M.E.: By any other name : accounting for failure in the naming of subject categories (1995) 0.01 
    0.011673857 = product of:
  0.04669543 = sum of:
    0.04669543 = sum of:
      0.006207845 = weight(_text_:a in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006207845 = score(doc=5598,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.049223874 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
      0.040487584 = weight(_text_:22 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040487584 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.149494 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04269026 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5598, 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=5598)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Research shows that 65-80% of subject search terms fail to match the appropriate subject heading and one third to one half of subject searches result in no references being retrieved. Examines the subject search terms geberated by 82 school and college students in Princeton, NJ, evaluated the match between the named terms and the expected subject headings, proposes an explanation for match failures in relation to 3 invariant properties common to all search terms: concreteness, complexity, and syndeticity. Suggests that match failure is a consequence of developmental naming patterns and that these patterns can be overcome through the use of metacognitive naming skills
    Date
    2.11.1996 13:08:22
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 443
  • s 10
  • el 9
  • m 6
  • r 5
  • p 2
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications