-
Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990)
0.02
0.017965218 = product of:
0.053895652 = sum of:
0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012493922 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
0.04140173 = product of:
0.08280346 = sum of:
0.08280346 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08280346 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:43:54
-
Munkelt, J.: Erstellung einer DNB-Retrieval-Testkollektion (2018)
0.02
0.016486328 = product of:
0.049458984 = sum of:
0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008834538 = score(doc=4310,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
0.040624447 = weight(_text_:und in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040624447 = score(doc=4310,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Seit Herbst 2017 findet in der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek die Inhaltserschließung bestimmter Medienwerke rein maschinell statt. Die Qualität dieses Verfahrens, das die Prozessorganisation von Bibliotheken maßgeblich prägen kann, wird unter Fachleuten kontrovers diskutiert. Ihre Standpunkte werden zunächst hinreichend erläutert, ehe die Notwendigkeit einer Qualitätsprüfung des Verfahrens und dessen Grundlagen dargelegt werden. Zentraler Bestandteil einer künftigen Prüfung ist eine Testkollektion. Ihre Erstellung und deren Dokumentation steht im Fokus dieser Arbeit. In diesem Zusammenhang werden auch die Entstehungsgeschichte und Anforderungen an gelungene Testkollektionen behandelt. Abschließend wird ein Retrievaltest durchgeführt, der die Einsatzfähigkeit der erarbeiteten Testkollektion belegt. Seine Ergebnisse dienen ausschließlich der Funktionsüberprüfung. Eine Qualitätsbeurteilung maschineller Inhaltserschließung im Speziellen sowie im Allgemeinen findet nicht statt und ist nicht Ziel der Ausarbeitung.
- Content
- Bachelorarbeit, Bibliothekswissenschaften, Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften, Technische Hochschule Köln
- Imprint
- Köln : Technische Hochschule, Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften
-
Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983)
0.01
0.014064478 = product of:
0.04219343 = sum of:
0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012620768 = score(doc=2417,freq=4.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
0.029572664 = product of:
0.059145328 = sum of:
0.059145328 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059145328 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Pages
- S.22-25
- Source
- Productivity in the information age : proceedings of the 46th ASIS annual meeting, 1983. Ed.: Raymond F Vondra
-
Ellis, D.: Progress and problems in information retrieval (1996)
0.01
0.013207427 = product of:
0.03962228 = sum of:
0.01596415 = weight(_text_:in in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01596415 = score(doc=789,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- An introduction to the principal generic approaches to information retrieval research with their associated concepts, models and systems, this text is designed to keep the information professional up to date with the major themes and developments that have preoccupied researchers in recent month in relation to textual and documentary retrieval systems.
- Content
- First published 1991 as New horizons in information retrieval
- Date
- 26. 7.2002 20:22:46
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Managing information 3(1996) no.10, S.49 (D. Bawden); Program 32(1998) no.2, S.190-192 (C. Revie)
-
Hodges, P.R.: Keyword in title indexes : effectiveness of retrieval in computer searches (1983)
0.01
0.01278998 = product of:
0.03836994 = sum of:
0.017669076 = weight(_text_:in in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017669076 = score(doc=5001,freq=16.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Blair, D.C.: STAIRS Redux : thoughts on the STAIRS evaluation, ten years after (1996)
0.01
0.012000911 = product of:
0.036002733 = sum of:
0.015301868 = weight(_text_:in in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015301868 = score(doc=3002,freq=12.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3002, 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=3002)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The test of retrieval effectiveness performed on IBM's STAIRS and reported in 'Communications of the ACM' 10 years ago, continues to be cited frequently in the information retrieval literature. The reasons for the study's continuing pertinence to today's research are discussed, and the political, legal, and commercial aspects of the study are presented. In addition, the method of calculating recall that was used in the STAIRS study is discussed in some detail, especially how it reduces the 5 major types of uncertainty in recall estimations. It is also suggested that this method of recall estimation may serve as the basis for recall estimations that might be truly comparable between systems
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.4-22
-
Brown, M.E.: By any other name : accounting for failure in the naming of subject categories (1995)
0.01
0.01106493 = product of:
0.033194788 = sum of:
0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012493922 = score(doc=5598,freq=8.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Blagden, J.F.: How much noise in a role-free and link-free co-ordinate indexing system? (1966)
0.01
0.010506973 = product of:
0.031520918 = sum of:
0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010820055 = score(doc=2718,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Smithson, S.: Information retrieval evaluation in practice : a case study approach (1994)
0.01
0.010506973 = product of:
0.031520918 = sum of:
0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010820055 = score(doc=7302,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬A test for the separation of relevant and non-relevant documents in experimental retrieval collections (1973)
0.01
0.010265838 = product of:
0.030797515 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Date
- 19. 3.1996 11:22:12
-
Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996)
0.01
0.010265838 = product of:
0.030797515 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Describes the Reuters test collection, which at 22.173 references is significantly larger than most traditional test collections. In addition, Reuters has none of the recall calculation problems normally associated with some of the larger test collections available. Explains the method derived by D.D. Lewis to perform retrieval experiments on the Reuters collection and illustrates the use of the Reuters collection using some simple retrieval experiments that compare the performance of stemming algorithms
- 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
-
¬The Fifth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-5) (1997)
0.01
0.010265838 = product of:
0.030797515 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3087, 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=3087)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Proceedings of the 5th TREC-confrerence held in Gaithersburgh, Maryland, Nov 20-22, 1996. Aim of the conference was discussion on retrieval techniques for large test collections. Different research groups used different techniques, such as automated thesauri, term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The proceedings include papers, tables of the system results, and brief system descriptions including timing and storage information
-
Iivonen, M.: Consistency in the selection of search concepts and search terms (1995)
0.01
0.00990557 = product of:
0.02971671 = sum of:
0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011973113 = score(doc=1757,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions
-
Chen, H.; Martinez, J.; Kirchhoff, A.; Ng, T.D.; Schatz, B.R.: Alleviating search uncertainty through concept associations : automatic indexing, co-occurence analysis, and parallel computing (1998)
0.01
0.009460791 = product of:
0.028382372 = sum of:
0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 5202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014166778 = score(doc=5202,freq=14.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 5202, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5202)
0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 5202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014215595 = score(doc=5202,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 5202, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5202)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- In this article, we report research on an algorithmic approach to alleviating search uncertainty in a large information space. Grounded on object filtering, automatic indexing, and co-occurence analysis, we performed a large-scale experiment using a parallel supercomputer (SGI Power Challenge) to analyze 400.000+ abstracts in an INSPEC computer engineering collection. Two system-generated thesauri, one based on a combined object filtering and automatic indexing method, and the other based on automatic indexing only, were compaed with the human-generated INSPEC subject thesaurus. Our user evaluation revealed that the system-generated thesauri were better than the INSPEC thesaurus in 'concept recall', but in 'concept precision' the 3 thesauri were comparable. Our analysis also revealed that the terms suggested by the 3 thesauri were complementary and could be used to significantly increase 'variety' in search terms the thereby reduce search uncertainty
- Theme
- Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
-
Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014)
0.01
0.0091357 = product of:
0.027407099 = sum of:
0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012620768 = score(doc=1786,freq=16.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Purpose - One core element of interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments is the assignment of search tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical review of current practice in developing those search tasks to test, observe or control task complexity and difficulty. Design/methodology/approach - Over 100 prior studies of IIR were examined in terms of how each defined task complexity and/or difficulty (or related concepts) and subsequently interpreted those concepts in the development of the assigned search tasks. Findings - Search task complexity is found to include three dimensions: multiplicity of subtasks or steps, multiplicity of facets, and indeterminability. Search task difficulty is based on an interaction between the search task and the attributes of the searcher or the attributes of the search situation. The paper highlights the anomalies in our use of these two concepts, concluding with suggestions for future methodological research related to search task complexity and difficulty. Originality/value - By analyzing and synthesizing current practices, this paper provides guidance for future experiments in IIR that involve these two constructs.
- Content
- Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Festschrift in honour of Nigel Ford
- Date
- 6. 4.2015 19:31:22
-
Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000)
0.01
0.009005977 = product of:
0.027017929 = sum of:
0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009274333 = score(doc=2552,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to examine interindexer consistency (the degree to which indexers, when assigning terms to a chosen record, will choose the same terms to reflect that record) in the PsycINFO database using 60 records that were inadvertently processed twice between 1996 and 1998. Five aspects of interindexer consistency were analysed. Two methods were used to calculate interindexer consistency: one posited by Hooper (1965) and the other by Rollin (1981). Aspects analysed were: checktag consistency (66.24% using Hooper's calculation and 77.17% using Rollin's); major-to-all term consistency (49.31% and 62.59% respectively); overall indexing consistency (49.02% and 63.32%); classification code consistency (44.17% and 45.00%); and major-to-major term consistency (43.24% and 56.09%). The average consistency across all categories was 50.4% using Hooper's method and 60.83% using Rollin's. Although comparison with previous studies is difficult due to methodological variations in the overall study of indexing consistency and the specific characteristics of the database, results generally support previous findings when trends and similar studies are analysed.
- Date
- 9. 2.1997 18:44:22
-
Losee, R.M.: Determining information retrieval and filtering performance without experimentation (1995)
0.01
0.008982609 = product of:
0.026947826 = sum of:
0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006246961 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
King, D.W.: Blazing new trails : in celebration of an audacious career (2000)
0.01
0.008863994 = product of:
0.02659198 = sum of:
0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011805649 = score(doc=1184,freq=14.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- I had the distinct pleasure of working with Pauline Atherton (Cochrane) during the 1960s, a period that can be considered the heyday of automated information system design and evaluation in the United States. I first met Pauline at the 1962 American Documentation Institute annual meeting in North Hollywood, Florida. My company, Westat Research Analysts, had recently been awarded a contract by the U.S. Patent Office to provide statistical support for the design of experiments with automated information retrieval systems. I was asked to attend the meeting to learn more about information retrieval systems and to begin informing others of U.S. Patent Office activities in this area. At one session, Pauline and I questioned a speaker about the research that he presented. Pauline's questions concerned the logic of their approach and mine, the statistical aspects. After the session, she came over to talk to me and we began a professional and personal friendship that continues to this day. During the 1960s, Pauline was involved in several important information-retrieval projects including a series of studies for the American Institute of Physics, a dissertation examining the relevance of retrieved documents, and development and evaluation of an online information-retrieval system. I had the opportunity to work with Pauline and her colleagues an four of those projects and will briefly describe her work in the 1960s.
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
- Source
- Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler
-
Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011)
0.01
0.008863994 = product of:
0.02659198 = sum of:
0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011805649 = score(doc=4540,freq=14.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process. Findings - This study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment. Research limitations/implications - Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments. Practical implications - If multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short-term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions. Originality/value - This study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.
- Date
- 12. 7.2011 18:29:22
-
Evans, J.E.: Some external and internal factors affecting users of interactive information systems (1996)
0.01
0.00872957 = product of:
0.026188709 = sum of:
0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 6262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011973113 = score(doc=6262,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 6262, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6262)
0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 6262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014215595 = score(doc=6262,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 6262, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6262)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This contribution reports the results of continuing research in human-information system interactions. Following training and experience with an electronic information retrieval system novice and experienced subject groups responded to questions ranking their value assessments of 7 attributes of information sources in relation to 15 factors describing the search process. In general, novice users were more heavily influenced by the process factors (negative influences) than by the positive attributes of information qualities. Experienced users, while still concerned with process factors, were more strongly influenced by the qualitative information attributes. The specific advantages and contributions of this research are several: higher dimensionality of measured factors and attributes (15 x 7); higher granularity of analysis using a 7 value metric in a closed-end Likert scale; development of bi-directional, firced-choice influence vectors; and a larger sample size (N=186) than previously reported in the literature
- Source
- Herausforderungen an die Informationswirtschaft: Informationsverdichtung, Informationsbewertung und Datenvisualisierung. Proceedings des 5. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI'96), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 17.-19. Oktober 1996. Hrsg.: J. Krause u.a
