Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.007337282 = product of:
  0.025680486 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.013189158 = product of:
      0.026378317 = sum of:
        0.026378317 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026378317 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.0043710545 = product of:
  0.03059738 = sum of:
    0.03059738 = weight(_text_:with in 5601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03059738 = score(doc=5601,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3260817 = fieldWeight in 5601, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5601)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - To present a method for creating a comparable document collection from two document collections in different languages. Design/methodology/approach - The best query keys were extracted from a Finnish source collection (articles of the newspaper Aamulehti) with the relative average term frequency formula. The keys were translated into English with a dictionary-based query translation program. The resulting lists of words were used as queries that were run against the target collection (Los Angeles Times articles) with the nearest neighbor method. The documents were aligned with unrestricted and date-restricted alignment schemes, which were also combined. Findings - The combined alignment scheme was found the best, when the relatedness of the document pairs was assessed with a five-degree relevance scale. Of the 400 document pairs, roughly 40 percent were highly or fairly related and 75 percent included at least lexical similarity. Research limitations/implications - The number of alignment pairs was small due to the short common time period of the two collections, and their geographical (and thus, topical) remoteness. In future, our aim is to build larger comparable corpora in various languages and use them as source of translation knowledge for the purposes of cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). Practical implications - Readily available parallel corpora are scarce. With this method, two unrelated document collections can relatively easily be aligned to create a CLIR resource. Originality/value - The method can be applied to weakly linked collections and morphologically complex languages, such as Finnish.

0.0037089628 = product of:
  0.025962738 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=996,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In order to design information retrieval (IR) learning environments and instruction, it is important to explore learning outcomes of different pedagogical solutions. Learning outcomes have seldom been evaluated in IR instruction. The particular focus of this study is the assessment of learning outcomes in an experimental, but naturalistic, learning environment compared to more traditional instruction. The 57 participants of an introductory course on IR were selected for this study, and the analysis illustrates their learning outcomes regarding both conceptual change and development of IR skill. Concept mapping of student essays was used to analyze conceptual change and log-files of search exercises provided data for performance assessment. Students in the experimental learning environment changed their conceptions more regarding linguistic aspects of IR and paid more emphasis on planning and management of search process. Performance assessment indicates that anchored instruction and scaffolding with an instructional tool, the IR Game, with performance feedback enables students to construct queries with fewer semantic knowledge errors also in operational IR systems.

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=4395,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - To show that stem generation compares well with lemmatization as a morphological tool for a highly inflectional language for IR purposes in a best-match retrieval system. Design/methodology/approach - Effects of three different morphological methods - lemmatization, stemming and stem production - for Finnish are compared in a probabilistic IR environment (INQUERY). Evaluation is done using a four-point relevance scale which is partitioned differently in different test settings. Findings - Results show that stem production, a lighter method than morphological lemmatization, compares well with lemmatization in a best-match IR environment. Differences in performance between stem production and lemmatization are small and they are not statistically significant in most of the tested settings. It is also shown that hitherto a rather neglected method of morphological processing for Finnish, stemming, performs reasonably well although the stemmer used - a Porter stemmer implementation - is far from optimal for a morphologically complex language like Finnish. In another series of tests, the effects of compound splitting and derivational expansion of queries are tested. Practical implications - Usefulness of morphological lemmatization and stem generation for IR purposes can be estimated with many factors. On the average P-R level they seem to behave very close to each other in a probabilistic IR system. Thus, the choice of the used method with highly inflectional languages needs to be estimated along other dimensions too. Originality/value - Results are achieved using Finnish as an example of a highly inflectional language. The results are of interest for anyone who is interested in processing of morphological variation of a highly inflected language for IR purposes.

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=767,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 767, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=767)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The study analyses contributions to Library and Information Science (LIS) by researchers representing various disciplines. How are such contributions associated with the choice of research topics and methodology? The study employs a quantitative content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 2015. Each article is seen as a contribution to LIS by the authors' disciplines, which are inferred from their affiliations. The unit of analysis is the article-discipline pair. Of the contribution instances, the share of LIS is one third. Computer Science contributes one fifth and Business and Economics one sixth. The latter disciplines dominate the contributions in information retrieval, information seeking, and scientific communication indicating strong influences in LIS. Correspondence analysis reveals three clusters of research, one focusing on traditional LIS with contributions from LIS and Humanities and survey-type research; another on information retrieval with contributions from Computer Science and experimental research; and the third on scientific communication with contributions from Natural Sciences and Medicine and citation analytic research. The strong differentiation of scholarly contributions in LIS hints to the fragmentation of LIS as a discipline.

0.003498369 = product of:
  0.024488581 = sum of:
    0.024488581 = product of:
      0.048977163 = sum of:
        0.048977163 = weight(_text_:humans in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048977163 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26276368 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.18639244 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The Turn analyzes the research of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R) and proposes a new direction of integrating research in these two areas: the fields should turn off their separate and narrow paths and construct a new avenue of research. An essential direction for this avenue is context as given in the subtitle Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Other essential themes in the book include: IS&R research models, frameworks and theories; search and works tasks and situations in context; interaction between humans and machines; information acquisition, relevance and information use; research design and methodology based on a structured set of explicit variables - all set into the holistic cognitive approach. The present monograph invites the reader into a construction project - there is much research to do for a contextual understanding of IS&R. The Turn represents a wide-ranging perspective of IS&R by providing a novel unique research framework, covering both individual and social aspects of information behavior, including the generation, searching, retrieval and use of information. Regarding traditional laboratory information retrieval research, the monograph proposes the extension of research toward actors, search and work tasks, IR interaction and utility of information. Regarding traditional information seeking research, it proposes the extension toward information access technology and work task contexts. The Turn is the first synthesis of research in the broad area of IS&R ranging from systems oriented laboratory IR research to social science oriented information seeking studies. TOC:Introduction.- The Cognitive Framework for Information.- The Development of Information Seeking Research.- Systems-Oriented Information Retrieval.- Cognitive and User-Oriented Information Retrieval.- The Integrated IS&R Research Framework.- Implications of the Cognitive Framework for IS&R.- Towards a Research Program.- Conclusion.- Definitions.- References.- Index.

0.0025236295 = product of:
  0.017665405 = sum of:
    0.017665405 = weight(_text_:with in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665405 = score(doc=4545,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 4545, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4545)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article presents a novel user-oriented interface for generalised informetric analysis and demonstrates how informetric calculations can easily and declaratively be specified through advanced data modelling techniques. The interface is declarative and at a high level. Therefore it is easy to use, flexible and extensible. It enables end users to perform basic informetric ad hoc calculations easily and often with much less effort than in contemporary online retrieval systems. It also provides several fruitful generalisations of typical informetric measurements like impact factors. These are based on substituting traditional foci of analysis, for instance journals, by other object types, such as authors, organisations or countries. In the interface, bibliographic data are modelled as complex objects (non-first normal form relations) and terminological and citation networks involving transitive relationships are modelled as binary relations for deductive processing. The interface is flexible, because it makes it easy to switch focus between various object types for informetric calculations, e.g. from authors to institutions. Moreover, it is demonstrated that all informetric data can easily be broken down by criteria that foster advanced analysis, e.g. by years or content-bearing attributes. Such modelling allows flexible data aggregation along many dimensions. These salient features emerge from the query interface's general data restructuring and aggregation capabilities combined with transitive processing capabilities. The features are illustrated by means of sample queries and results in the article.

0.0025236295 = product of:
  0.017665405 = sum of:
    0.017665405 = weight(_text_:with in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665405 = score(doc=5225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Kekalainen and Jarvelin use what they term generalized, nonbinary recall and precision measures where recall is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the sum of relevance scores of all documents in the data base, and precision is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the number of documents where the relevance scores are real numbers between zero and one. Using the In-Query system and a text data base of 53,893 newspaper articles with 30 queries selected from those for which four relevance categories to provide recall measures were available, search results were evaluated by four judges. Searches were done by average key term weight, Boolean expression, and by average term weight where the terms are grouped by a synonym operator, and for each case with and without expansion of the original terms. Use of higher standards of relevance appears to increase the superiority of the best method. Some methods do a better job of getting the highly relevant documents but do not increase retrieval of marginal ones. There is evidence that generalized precision provides more equitable results, while binary precision provides undeserved merit to some methods. Generally graded relevance measures seem to provide additional insight into IR evaluation.

0.0025236295 = product of:
  0.017665405 = sum of:
    0.017665405 = weight(_text_:with in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665405 = score(doc=139,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Information retrieval systems' ability to retrieve highly relevant documents has become more and more important in the age of extremely large collections, such as the World Wide Web (WWW). The authors' aim was to find out how corpus-based cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) manages in retrieving highly relevant documents. They created a Finnish-Swedish comparable corpus from two loosely related document collections and used it as a source of knowledge for query translation. Finnish test queries were translated into Swedish and run against a Swedish test collection. Graded relevance assessments were used in evaluating the results and three relevance criterion levels-liberal, regular, and stringent-were applied. The runs were also evaluated with generalized recall and precision, which weight the retrieved documents according to their relevance level. The performance of the Comparable Corpus Translation system (COCOT) was compared to that of a dictionarybased query translation program; the two translation methods were also combined. The results indicate that corpus-based CUR performs particularly well with highly relevant documents. In average precision, COCOT even matched the monolingual baseline on the highest relevance level. The performance of the different query translation methods was further analyzed by finding out reasons for poor rankings of highly relevant documents.

0.0025236295 = product of:
  0.017665405 = sum of:
    0.017665405 = weight(_text_:with in 2836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665405 = score(doc=2836,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18826336 = fieldWeight in 2836, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2836)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the possibility of retrieving information with Kohonen self-organising maps, which are known to be effective to group objects according to their similarity or dissimilarity. Design/methodology/approach - After conventional preprocessing, such as transforming into vector space, documents from a German document collection were trained for a neural network of Kohonen self-organising map type. Such an unsupervised network forms a document map from which relevant objects can be found according to queries. Findings - Self-organising maps ordered documents to groups from which it was possible to find relevant targets. Research limitations/implications - The number of documents used was moderate due to the limited number of documents associated to test topics. The training of self-organising maps entails rather long running times, which is their practical limitation. In future, the aim will be to build larger networks by compressing document matrices, and to develop document searching in them. Practical implications - With self-organising maps the distribution of documents can be visualised and relevant documents found in document collections of limited size. Originality/value - The paper reports on an approach that can be especially used to group documents and also for information search. So far self-organising maps have rarely been studied for information retrieval. Instead, they have been applied to document grouping tasks.

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Search key resolution power is analyzed in the context of a request, i.e., among the set of search keys for the request. Methods of characterizing the resolution power of keys automatically are studied, and the effects search keys of varying resolution power have on retrieval effectiveness are analyzed. It is shown that it often is possible to identify the best key of a query while the discrimination between the remaining keys presents problems. It is also shown that query performance is improved by suitably using the best key in a structured query. The tests were run with InQuery in a subcollection of the TREC collection, which contained some 515,000 documents

0.0024982654 = product of:
  0.017487857 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 3901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=3901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 3901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3901)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The domain of user-oriented and cognitive information retrieval (IR) is first discussed, followed by a discussion on the dimensions and types of models one may build for the domain. The focus of the present entry is on the models of user-oriented and cognitive IR, not on their empirical applications. Several models with different emphases on user-oriented and cognitive IR are presented-ranging from overall approaches and relevance models to procedural models, cognitive models, and task-based models. The present entry does not discuss empirical findings based on the models.

0.0022609986 = product of:
  0.015826989 = sum of:
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al

0.0022609986 = product of:
  0.015826989 = sum of:
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Multidimensional data analysis or On-line analytical processing (OLAP) offers a single subject-oriented source for analyzing summary data based an various dimensions. We demonstrate that the OLAP approach gives a promising starting point for advanced analysis and comparison among summary data in informetrics applications. At the moment there is no single precise, commonly accepted logical/conceptual model for multidimensional analysis. This is because the requirements of applications vary considerably. We develop a conceptual/logical multidimensional model for supporting the complex and unpredictable needs of informetrics. Summary data are considered with respect of some dimensions. By changing dimensions the user may construct other views an the same summary data. We develop a multidimensional query language whose basic idea is to support the definition of views in a way, which is natural and intuitive for lay users in the informetrics area. We show that this view-oriented query language has a great expressive power and its degree of declarativity is greater than in contemporary operation-oriented or SQL (Structured Query Language)-like OLAP query languages.

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 4922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=4922,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 4922, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4922)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this article the authors look at the prescriptions advocated by Web search textbooks in the light of a selection of empirical data of real Web information search processes. They use the strategy of disjointed incrementalism, which is a theoretical foundation from decision making, to focus an how people face complex problems, and claim that such problem solving can be compared to the tasks searchers perform when interacting with the Web. The findings suggest that textbooks an Web searching should take into account that searchers only tend to take a certain number of sources into consideration, that the searchers adjust their goals and objectives during searching, and that searchers reconsider the usefulness of sources at different stages of their work tasks as well as their search tasks.

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 1349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=1349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 1349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1349)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.

0.0021413704 = product of:
  0.014989593 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 2229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=2229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 2229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2229)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Modern fact databses contain abundant data classified through several classifications. Typically, users msut consult these classifications in separate manuals or files, thus making their effective use difficult. Contemporary database systems do little support deductive use of classifications. In this study we show how deductive data management techniques can be applied to the utilization of data value classifications. Computation of transitive class relationships is of primary importance here. We define a representation of classifications which supports transitive computation and present an operation-oriented deductive query language tailored for classification-based deductive information retrieval. The operations of this language are on the same abstraction level as relational algebra operations and can be integrated with these to form a powerful and flexible query language for deductive information retrieval. We define the integration of these operations and demonstrate the usefulness of the language in terms of several sample queries

0.0020189036 = product of:
  0.014132325 = sum of:
    0.014132325 = weight(_text_:with in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014132325 = score(doc=643,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15061069 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Information Retrieval (IR) is a research area both within Computer Science and Information Science. It has by and large two communities: a Computer Science oriented experimental approach and a user-oriented Information Science approach with a Social Science background. The communities hold a critical stance towards each other (e.g., Ingwersen, 1996), the latter suspecting the realism of the former, and the former suspecting the usefulness of the latter. Within Information Science the study of information seeking (IS) also has a Social Science background. There is a lot of research in each of these particular areas of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R). However, the three communities do not really communicate with each other. Why is this, and could the relationships be otherwise? Do the communities in fact belong together? Or perhaps each community is better off forgetting about the existence of the other two? We feel that the relationships between the research areas have not been properly analyzed. One way to analyze the relationships is to examine what each research area is trying to find out: which phenomena are being explained and how. We believe that IS&R research would benefit from being analytic about its frameworks, models and theories, not just at the level of meta-theories, but also much more concretely at the level of study designs. Over the years there have been calls for more context in the study of IS&R. Work tasks as well as cultural activities/interests have been proposed as the proper context for information access. For example, Wersig (1973) conceptualized information needs from the tasks perspective. He argued that in order to learn about information needs and seeking, one needs to take into account the whole active professional role of the individuals being investigated. Byström and Järvelin (1995) analysed IS processes in the light of tasks of varying complexity. Ingwersen (1996) discussed the role of tasks and their descriptions and problematic situations from a cognitive perspective on IR. Most recently, Vakkari (2003) reviewed task-based IR and Järvelin and Ingwersen (2004) proposed the extension of IS&R research toward the task context. Therefore there is much support to the task context, but how should it be applied in IS&R?