Search (397 results, page 20 of 20)

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=3061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3061, 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=3061)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of an experiment using a simulated title pages, author surnames, and title words, one-third of which were selected by each of the 3 authors, to determine the frequency of one-screen displays when used to search for known items in an implied Boolean retrieval system. Searches comprising surname plus one significant title word produced one-screen displays 78% of time; surname plus 2 words 97% of the time; and surname plus 3 words 98,5%. Three quarters of the significant words were nouns

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 3759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=3759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 3759, 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=3759)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=340,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 340, 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=340)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Report of a study from the user's point of view, investigating the facility with which bibliographical material can be identified in a multidisciplinary field, the prospective for peace, from the University's resources. Searches (uniterm and relational) were effected using all available tools - OPACs, CD-ROM collections, online databases, manual catalogues, the Internet - both on the University's system and on national research institutions. Overall results returned a low rate of pertinence (1,86%). This is due not to lack of user search expertise but the lack of subject specific indexing coupled with using a MARC format

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 5368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=5368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5368, 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=5368)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0010304814 = product of:
  0.0061828885 = sum of:
    0.0061828885 = weight(_text_:in in 840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061828885 = score(doc=840,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 840, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=840)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper reports the findings of a study designed to explore web searchers' perceptions of the causes of their search failure and success. In particular, it seeks to discover the extent to which the constructs locus of control and attribution theory might provide useful frameworks for understanding searchers' perceptions. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of inductive and deductive approaches were employed. Perceptions of failed and successful searches were derived from the inductive analysis of using open-ended qualitative interviews with a sample of 37 biologists at the University of Sheffield. These perceptions were classified into "internal" and "external" attributions, and the relationships between these categories and "successful" and "failed" searches were analysed deductively to test the extent to which they might be explainable using locus of control and attribution theory interpretive frameworks. Findings - All searchers were readily able to recall "successful" and "unsuccessful" searches. In a large majority of cases (82.4 per cent), they clearly attributed each search to either internal (e.g. ability or effort) or external (e.g. luck or information not being available) factors. The pattern of such relationships was analysed, and mapped onto those that would be predicted by locus of control and attribution theory. The authors conclude that the potential of these theoretical frameworks to illuminate one's understanding of web searching, and associated training, merits further systematic study. Research limitations/implications - The findings are based on a relatively small sample of academic and research staff in a particular subject area. Importantly, also, the study can at best provide a prima facie case for further systematic study since, although the patterns of attribution behaviour accord with those predictable by locus of control and attribution theory, data relating to the predictive elements of these theories (e.g. levels of confidence and achievement) were not available. This issue is discussed, and recommendations made for further work. Originality/value - The findings provide some empirical support for the notion that locus of control and attribution theory might - subject to the limitations noted above - be potentially useful theoretical frameworks for helping us better understand web-based information seeking. If so, they could have implications particularly for better understanding of searchers' motivations, and for the design and development of more effective search training programmes.

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article reports on a comparison of the postcoordinate retrieval effectiveness of two indexing languages: LCSH and PRECIS. The effect of augmenting each with title words was also studies. The database for the study was over 15.000 UK MARC records. Users returned 5.326 relevant judgements for citations retrieved for 61 SDI profiles, representing a wide variety of subjects. Results are reported in terms of precision and relative recall. Pure/applied sciences data and social science data were analyzed separately. Cochran's significance tests for ratios were used to interpret the findings. Recall emerged as the more important measure discriminating the behavior of the two languages. Addition of title words was found to improve recall of both indexing languages significantly. A direct relationship was observed between recall and exhaustivity. For the social sciences searches, recalls from PRECIS alone and from PRECIS with title words were significantly higher than those from LCSH alone and from LCSH with title words, respectively. Corresponding comparisons for the pure/applied sciences searches revealed no significant differences

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 2678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=2678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2678)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 3563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=3563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3563)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The availability of two full text data bases in the clinical medical journal literature, MEDIS from Mead Data Central and CCML from BRS Information Technologies, provided an opportunity to compare the efficacy of the full text to the traditional, indexed system, MEDLINE for retrieval effectiveness. 100 searches were solicited from an academic health sciences library and the request were searched on all 3 data bases. The results were compared and preliminary analysis suggests that the full text data bases retrieve a greater number of relevant citations and MEDLINE achieves higher precision.

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=3855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The University of Huddersfield, UK, is researching ways of incorporating ranking and relevance feedback techniques into a thesaurus based searching system. The INSPEC database on STN International was searched using the VUSE (View-based Search Engine) interface. Thesaurus terms from documents judged to be relevant by users were used to query INSPEC and create a ranking of documents based on probabilistic methods. An evaluation was carried out to establish whether or not it would be better for the user to continue searching with the thesaurus based front end or to use relevance feedback, looking at the ranked list of documents it would produce. Also looks at the amount of effort the user had to expend to get relevant documents in terms of the number of non relevant documents seen between relevant documents

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 6735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=6735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 6735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6735)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reports results of a study, conducted at Rhode Island University Library, to determine whether cataloguing records known to be missing from a library consortium OPAC database could be identified using the database search features. Attempts to create lists of bibliographic records held by other libraries in the consortium using Boolean searching features failed due to search feature limitations. Samples of search logic were created, collections of records based on this logic were assembled manually and then compared with card catalogue of the single library. Results suggest that use of the Boolean OR operator to conduct the broadest possible search could find 56.000 of the library's missing records that were held by other libraries. Use of the Boolean AND operator to conduct the narrowest search found 85.000 missing records. A specific library search made of the records of the most likely consortium library to have overlaid the single library's holdings found that 80.000 of the single library's missing records were held by a specific library

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=1320,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1320, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1320)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A special issue devoted to papers from the 2nd Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-2) held in Aug 93

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Answering open-domain factual questions requires Natural Language processing for refining document selection and answer identification. With our system QALC, we have participated in the Question Answering track of the TREC8, TREC9 and TREC10 evaluations. QALC performs an analysis of documents relying an multiword term searches and their linguistic variation both to minimize the number of documents selected and to provide additional clues when comparing question and sentence representations. This comparison process also makes use of the results of a syntactic parsing of the questions and Named Entity recognition functionalities. Answer extraction relies an the application of syntactic patterns chosen according to the kind of information that is sought, and categorized depending an the syntactic form of the question. These patterns allow QALC to handle nicely linguistic variations at the answer level.

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 3459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=3459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3459)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI), when applied to semantic space built an text collections, improves information retrieval, information filtering, and word sense disambiguation. A new dual probability model based an the similarity concepts is introduced to provide deeper understanding of LSI. Semantic associations can be quantitatively characterized by their statistical significance, the likelihood. Semantic dimensions containing redundant and noisy information can be separated out and should be ignored because their negative contribution to the overall statistical significance. LSI is the optimal solution of the model. The peak in the likelihood curve indicates the existence of an intrinsic semantic dimension. The importance of LSI dimensions follows the Zipf-distribution, indicating that LSI dimensions represent latent concepts. Document frequency of words follows the Zipf distribution, and the number of distinct words follows log-normal distribution. Experiments an five standard document collections confirm and illustrate the analysis.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 4297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=4297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 4297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4297)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study explores the relevance criteria and search strategies elementary school children applied when searching for information related to a class assignment in a school library setting. Students were interviewed on 2 occasions at different stages of the research process; field observations involved students thinking aloud to explain their search proceses and shadowing as students moved around the school library. Students performed searches on an online catalog, an electronic encyclopedia, an electronic magazine index, and the WWW. Results are presented for children selecting the topic, conducting the search, examining the results, and extracting relevant results. A total of 254 mentions of relevance criteria were identified, including 197 references to textual relevance criteria that were coded into 9 categories and 57 references to graphical relevance criteria that were coded into 5 categories. Students exhibited little concern for the authority of the textual and graphical information they found, based the majority of their relevance decisions for textual material on topicality, and identified information they found interesting. Students devoted a large portion of their research time to find pictures. Understanding the ways that children use electronic resources and the relevance criteria they apply has implications for information literacy training and for systems design

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3456,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3456, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3456)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The existence, public availability, and widespread acceptance of a standard benchmark for a given information retrieval (IR) task are beneficial to research an this task, because they allow different researchers to experimentally compare their own systems by comparing the results they have obtained an this benchmark. The Reuters-21578 test collection, together with its earlier variants, has been such a standard benchmark for the text categorization (TC) task throughout the last 10 years. However, the benefits that this has brought about have somehow been limited by the fact that different researchers have "carved" different subsets out of this collection and tested their systems an one of these subsets only; systems that have been tested an different Reuters-21578 subsets are thus not readily comparable. In this article, we present a systematic, comparative experimental study of the three subsets of Reuters-21578 that have been most popular among TC researchers. The results we obtain allow us to determine the relative hardness of these subsets, thus establishing an indirect means for comparing TC systems that have, or will be, tested an these different subsets.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=3868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.