Search (181 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. 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
  2. Kaltenborn, K.-F.: Endnutzerrecherchen in der CD-ROM-Datenbank Medline : T.1: Evaluations- und Benutzerforschung über Nutzungscharakteristika, Bewertung der Rechercheergebnisse und künftige Informationsgewinnung; T.2: Evaluations- und Benutzerforschung über Recherchequalität und Nutzer-Computer/Datenbank-Interaktion (1991) 0.02
    0.016494038 = product of:
      0.04948211 = sum of:
        0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009274333 = score(doc=5105,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5105, 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=5105)
        0.040207777 = weight(_text_:und in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040207777 = score(doc=5105,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 5105, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5105)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    Die Einführung von CD-ROM Datenbanken als neue Informationstechnologie hat die Formen der Informationsgewinnung in bestimmten wissenschaftlichen Fachgebieten grundlegend geändert. Der Beitrag berichtet über Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Begleitforschung bei Endnutzerrecherchen in der CD-ROM-Version der Datenbank MEDLINE. Hierzu wurden drei verschiedene Erhebungen durchgeführt. Hiernach ist die überwiegende Zahl der Endnutzer (89,3%) mit dem jeweiligen Rechercheresultat zufrieden, wobei Benutzer mit geringer Rechercheerfahrung eine höhere Zufriedenheitsrate erreichen als Benutzer mit umfangreicheren Recherchekenntnissen. Die Gründe zur Nutzung von CD-ROM-Systemen resultieren voriwegend aus der klinischen Alltagsroutine oder täglichen Forschungspraxis, während vermittelte Online-Literatursuchen tendenziell häufiger im Zusammenhang mit einmaligen Ereignissen der wissenschaftlichen Aus- und Weiterbildung stehen. Die selbständige CD-ROM Literaturrecherche stellt für die befragten Ärzte und Wissenschaftler die bevorzugte Methode der Informationsgewinnung dar. Die analysierten Endnutzerrecherchen weisen allerdings Fehler und Defizite hinsichtlich einer optimalen Suchstrategie auf, die zu unbemerktn Informationsverlusten und zu Fehlbeurteilungen des wissenschaftlichen Kenntnisstandes führen
  3. Frisch, E.; Kluck, M.: Pretest zum Projekt German Indexing and Retrieval Testdatabase (GIRT) unter Anwendung der Retrievalsysteme Messenger und freeWAISsf (1997) 0.02
    0.01501588 = product of:
      0.045047637 = sum of:
        0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071393843 = score(doc=624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 624, 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=624)
        0.037908252 = weight(_text_:und in 624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037908252 = score(doc=624,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 624, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=624)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    GIRT soll den Rahmen für einen aussagekräftigen Vergleich moderner, intelligenter Indexierungs- und Retrievalsysteme schaffen, auf dessen Basis die Leistungsfähigkeit dieser Systeme gegenüber herkömmlichen Standardsystemen beurteilt werden kann. Es geht darum, die existierenden bzw. in der Entwicklung befindlichen modernen Indexierungs- und Retrievalsysteme auf ihre Leistungsfähigkeit und Einsatzfähigkeit für den Bereich der Fachinformation hin zu überprüfen
  4. Knorz, G.: Testverfahren für intelligente Indexierungs- und Retrievalsysteme anhand deutsch-sprachiger sozialwissenschaftlicher Fachinformation (GIRT) : Bericht über einen Workshop am 12. September 1997 im IZ Sozialwissenschaften, Bonn (1998) 0.02
    0.01501588 = product of:
      0.045047637 = sum of:
        0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 5080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071393843 = score(doc=5080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5080, 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=5080)
        0.037908252 = weight(_text_:und in 5080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037908252 = score(doc=5080,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 5080, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5080)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Content
    A. Die Initiative "GIRT" 1. Vorträge 2. Ziele und Perspektiven des Projektes GIRT (Krause) 3. Generelle Ergebnisse der TREC-Studien, einschließlich TREC-5 (Womser-Hacker) 4. Ergebnisse des GIRT-Pretests (Kluck) 5. Multilingualität in TREC (Schäuble) B. Abschlußdiskussion und Resumee
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.2, S.111-116
  5. Krause, J.; Womser-Hacker, C.: PADOK-II : Retrievaltests zur Bewertung von Volltextindexierungsvarianten für das deutsche Patentinformationssystem (1990) 0.01
    0.013322966 = product of:
      0.039968897 = sum of:
        0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071393843 = score(doc=2653,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2653, 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=2653)
        0.032829512 = weight(_text_:und in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032829512 = score(doc=2653,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    Vorgestellt werden die Ergebnisse extensiver Retrievaltests von zwei Varianten von Inhalteserschließungen (Freitext und PASSAT) für das deutsche Patentinformationssystem auf der Basis von Volltexten. Die Tests führte die Fachgruppe Linguistische Informationswissenschaft der Universität Regensburg von 1986-1989 in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Deutschen Patentamt, dem Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe und meheren industrieellen Partnern durch. Der Schwerpunkt des Berichts liegt auf dem allgemeinen Ansatz der Bewertung der Ziele des Projekts und auf der Darstellung der statistischen Evaluierungsergebnisse.
  6. 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)
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Bollmann-Sdorra, P.: Probleme der Validität bei Retrievaltests (1990) 0.01
    0.010872297 = product of:
      0.03261689 = sum of:
        0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008924231 = score(doc=5113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 5113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5113)
        0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02369266 = score(doc=5113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 5113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5113)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    In diesem Beitrag werden beispielhaft Probleme der Validität bei Retrievaltests behandelt. Die externe Validität wird im Zusammenhang von Ähnlichkeitsmaßen und Bewertungsmaßen diskutiert. Die interne Validität wird am Beispiel der Mittelwertbildung diskutiert. Es zeigt sich, daß die Forderung nach Validität die zur Auswahl stehenden Methoden einschränkt
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997) 0.01
    0.010265838 = product of:
      0.030797515 = sum of:
        0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071393843 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 744, 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=744)
        0.02365813 = product of:
          0.04731626 = sum of:
            0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04731626 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    TREC ia an annual conference held in the USA devoted to electronic systems for large full text information searching. The conference deals with evaluation and comparison techniques developed since 1992 by participants from the research and industrial fields. The work of the conference is destined for designers (rather than users) of systems which access full text information. Describes the context, objectives, organization, evaluation methods and limits of TREC
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  13. ¬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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Lepsky, K.; Siepmann, J.; Zimmermann, A.: Automatische Indexierung für Online-Kataloge : Ergebnisse eines Retrievaltests (1996) 0.01
    0.0091349725 = product of:
      0.027404916 = sum of:
        0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010820055 = score(doc=3251,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 3251, 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=3251)
        0.01658486 = weight(_text_:und in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01658486 = score(doc=3251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 3251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3251)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    Examines the effectiveness of automated indexing and presents the results of a study of information retrieval from a segment (40.000 items) of the ULB Düsseldorf database. The segment was selected randomly and all the documents included were indexed automatically. The search topics included 50 subject areas ranging from economic growth to alternative energy sources. While there were 876 relevant documents in the database segment for each of the 50 search topics, the recall ranged from 1 to 244 references, with the average being 17.52 documents per topic. Therefore it seems that, in the immediate future, automatic indexing should be used in combination with intellectual indexing
    Source
    Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 43(1996) H.1, S.47-56
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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) 0.01
    0.008438686 = product of:
      0.025316058 = sum of:
        0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075724614 = score(doc=4341,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
        0.017743597 = product of:
          0.035487194 = sum of:
            0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035487194 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    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
  20. Crestani, F.; Rijsbergen, C.J. van: Information retrieval by imaging (1996) 0.01
    0.008438686 = product of:
      0.025316058 = sum of:
        0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075724614 = score(doc=6967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
        0.017743597 = product of:
          0.035487194 = sum of:
            0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035487194 = score(doc=6967,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    Explains briefly what constitutes the imaging process and explains how imaging can be used in information retrieval. Proposes an approach based on the concept of: 'a term is a possible world'; which enables the exploitation of term to term relationships which are estimated using an information theoretic measure. Reports results of an evaluation exercise to compare the performance of imaging retrieval, using possible world semantics, with a benchmark and using the Cranfield 2 document collection to measure precision and recall. Initially, the performance imaging retrieval was seen to be better but statistical analysis proved that the difference was not significant. The problem with imaging retrieval lies in the amount of computations needed to be performed at run time and a later experiement investigated the possibility of reducing this amount. Notes lines of further investigation
    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

Languages

Types

  • a 166
  • r 5
  • s 4
  • m 3
  • el 2
  • x 2
  • More… Less…