Search (56 results, page 1 of 3)

0.029483322 = product of:
  0.058966644 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
    0.019105844 = product of:
      0.03821169 = sum of:
        0.03821169 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03821169 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Research an the use of mathematical, logical, and formal methods, has been central to Information Retrieval research for a long time. Research in this area is important not only because it helps enhancing retrieval effectiveness, but also because it helps clarifying the underlying concepts of Information Retrieval. In this article we outline some of the major aspects of the subject, and summarize the papers of this special issue with respect to how they relate to these aspects. We conclude by highlighting some directions of future research, which are needed to better understand the formal characteristics of Information Retrieval.

Date

22. 3.2003 19:27:36

0.02327197 = product of:
  0.09308788 = sum of:
    0.09308788 = sum of:
      0.04213896 = weight(_text_:classification in 3499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04213896 = score(doc=3499,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 3499, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3499)
      0.05094892 = weight(_text_:22 in 3499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05094892 = score(doc=3499,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3499, 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=3499)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents a survey and discussion on signature-based text retrieval methods. It describes the main idea behind the signature approach and its advantages over other text retrieval methods, it provides a classification of the signature methods that have appeared in the literature, it describes the main representatives of each class, together with the relative advantages and drawbacks, and it gives a list of applications as well as commercial or university prototypes that use the signature approach

Date

7. 5.1999 15:22:48

0.017198605 = product of:
  0.03439721 = sum of:
    0.023252133 = weight(_text_:subject in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023252133 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.13830662 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.011145077 = product of:
      0.022290153 = sum of:
        0.022290153 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022290153 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.01409292 = product of:
  0.05637168 = sum of:
    0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05637168 = score(doc=3724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The assumption of topic matching between user needs and texts topically relevant to those needs is often erroneous. Reports an emprical investigantion of the question 'what relationship types actually account for topical relevance'? In order to avoid the bias to topic matching search strategies, user needs are back generated from a randomly selected subset of the subject headings employed in a user oriented topical concordance. The corresponding relevant texts are those indicated in the concordance under the subject heading. Compares the topics of the user needs with the topics of the relevant texts to determine the relationships between them. Topical relevance relationships include a large variety of relationships, only some of which are matching relationships. Others are examples of paradigmatic or syntagmatic relationships. There appear to be no constraints on the kinds of relationships that can function as topical relevance relationships. They are distinguishable from other types of relationships only on functional grounds

0.01409292 = product of:
  0.05637168 = sum of:
    0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05637168 = score(doc=247,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In response to Hjørland's recent call for a reconceptualization of the foundations of relevance, we suggest that the sociocognitive aspects of intermediation by information agencies, such as archives and libraries, are a necessary and unexplored part of the infrastructure of the subject knowledge domains central to his recommended "view of relevance informed by a social paradigm" (2010, p. 217). From a comparative analysis of documents from 39 graduate-level introductory courses in archives, reference, and strategic/competitive intelligence taught in 13 American Library Association-accredited library and information science (LIS) programs, we identify four defining sociocognitive dimensions of "relevance work" in information agencies within Hjørland's proposed framework for relevance: tasks, time, systems, and assessors. This study is intended to supply sociocognitive content from within the relevance work domain to support further domain analytic research, and to emphasize the importance of intermediary relevance work for all subject knowledge domains.

0.013286933 = product of:
  0.053147733 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=3571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The subject of query formulation is analysed within the framework of adaptive linear models. The study is based on the notions of user preference and an acceptable ranking strategy. A gradient descent algorithm is used to formulate the query vector by an inductive process. Presents a critical analysis of the existing relevance feedback and probabilistic approaches.

0.01273723 = product of:
  0.05094892 = sum of:
    0.05094892 = product of:
      0.10189784 = sum of:
        0.10189784 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10189784 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476

0.011626067 = product of:
  0.046504267 = sum of:
    0.046504267 = weight(_text_:subject in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046504267 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on a research project to evaluate and compare Boolean searching and methods of query reformulation using ranked output retrieval. Illustrates the design and operating features of the ranked output system, called ROSE (Ranked Output Search Engine), by means of typical results obtained by searching a database of 1239 records on the subject of cystic fibrosis. Concludes that further work is needed to determine the best reformulation tactics needed to harness the professional searcher's intelligence with that much more limited intelligence provided by the search software

0.011626067 = product of:
  0.046504267 = sum of:
    0.046504267 = weight(_text_:subject in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046504267 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports the design, building and testing of the Interactive Ranked Output Search Engine (IROSE), which includes as the main features: query reformulation, ranked output match options, field bias options, marking of must, minus, and truncated suppressed terms. Both DOS and Windows versions of IROSE were constructed and laboratory search tests were performed using 3 test collections of records with queries and relevance jedgements in the subject area of cystic fibrosis, library and information and current affairs. Concludes that there is substantial evidence of the quality of this approach to information retrieval and future tests are needed to redefine and improve the optionality and move to semi operational testing

0.011145077 = product of:
  0.044580307 = sum of:
    0.044580307 = product of:
      0.08916061 = sum of:
        0.08916061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08916061 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, 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=2134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:32:22

0.011145077 = product of:
  0.044580307 = sum of:
    0.044580307 = product of:
      0.08916061 = sum of:
        0.08916061 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08916061 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.0099652 = product of:
  0.0398608 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 7813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=7813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 7813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7813)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes an alternative method of representation for documents and queries in information retrieval systems to the 2 most common methods: free text, natural language representation and controlled language representation. The alternative method combines the advantage of both traditional approaches and overcomes the difficulties associated with each. The scheme was developed for use with Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English and uses a computerized version of the dictionary for the automatic generation of summary level semantic representations of each document and query. The system tags each word in a document with the appropriate Subject Field Code (SFC) from the dictionary and the SFCs are summed and normalized to produce a weighted, fixed length vector of the SFC. The search system matches the query SFC vector to the document SFC vectors in the database. The documents are then ranked on the basis of their vector's similarity to the query

0.0099652 = product of:
  0.0398608 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In most commercial online systems, the retrieval system is based on the Boolean model and its inverted file organization. Since the investment in these systems is so great and changing them could be economically unfeasible, this article suggests a new ranking scheme especially adapted for hypertext environments in order to produce more effective retrieval results and yet maintain the effectiveness of the investment made to date in the Boolean model. To select the retrieved documents, the suggested ranking strategy uses multiple sources of document content evidence. The proposed scheme integrates both the information provided by the index and query terms, and the inherent relationships between documents such as bibliographic references or hypertext links. We will demonstrate that our scheme represents an integration of both subject and citation indexing, and results in a significant imporvement over classical ranking schemes uses in hybrid Boolean systems, while preserving its efficiency. Moreover, through knowing the nearest neighbor and the hypertext links which constitute additional sources of evidence, our strategy will take them into account in order to further improve retrieval effectiveness and to provide 'good' starting points for browsing in a hypertext or hypermedia environement

0.0099652 = product of:
  0.0398608 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 4295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=4295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4295)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The issue of reducing the space overhead when indexing large text databases is becoming more and more important, as the text collection grow in size. Another subject, which is gaining importance as text databases grow and get more heterogeneous and error prone, is that of flexible string matching. One of the best tools to make the search more flexible is to allow a limited number of differences between the words found and those sought. This is called 'approximate text searching'. which is becoming more and more popular. In recent years some indexing schemes with very low space overhead have appeared, some of them dealing with approximate searching. These low overhead indices (whose most notorious exponent is Glimpse) are modified inverted files, where space is saved by making the lists of occurences point to text blocks instead of exact word positions. Despite their existence, little is known about the expected behaviour of these 'block addressing' indices, and even less is known when it comes to cope with approximate search. Our main contribution is an analytical study of the space-time trade-offs for indexed text searching

0.0099652 = product of:
  0.0398608 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The rapid development of the Internet and World Wide Web has caused some critical problem for information retrieval. Researchers have made several attempts to solve these problems. Thesauri and subject heading lists as traditional information retrieval tools have been criticised for their efficiency to tackle these newly emerging problems. This paper proposes an information retrieval tool generated by cocitation analysis, comprising keyword clusters with relationships based on the co-occurrences of keywords in the literature. Such a tool can play the role of an associative thesaurus that can provide information about the keywords in a domain that might be useful for information searching and query expansion

0.0099652 = product of:
  0.0398608 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

User interest as a very dynamic information need is often ignored in most existing information retrieval systems. In this research, we present the results of experiments designed to evaluate the performance of a real-time interest model (RIM) that attempts to identify the dynamic and changing query level interests regarding social media outputs. Unlike most existing ranking methods, our ranking approach targets calculation of the probability that user interest in the content of the document is subject to very dynamic user interest change. We describe 2 formulations of the model (real-time interest vector space and real-time interest language model) stemming from classical relevance ranking methods and develop a novel methodology for evaluating the performance of RIM using Amazon Mechanical Turk to collect (interest-based) relevance judgments on a daily basis. Our results show that the model usually, although not always, performs better than baseline results obtained from commercial web search engines. We identify factors that affect RIM performance and outline plans for future research.

0.009552922 = product of:
  0.03821169 = sum of:
    0.03821169 = product of:
      0.07642338 = sum of:
        0.07642338 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07642338 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:44

0.009552922 = product of:
  0.03821169 = sum of:
    0.03821169 = product of:
      0.07642338 = sum of:
        0.07642338 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07642338 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:56

0.009217897 = product of:
  0.03687159 = sum of:
    0.03687159 = product of:
      0.07374318 = sum of:
        0.07374318 = weight(_text_:classification in 4846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07374318 = score(doc=4846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 4846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.008304333 = product of:
  0.033217333 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=1066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports 3 explorations of ranked system design. 2 tests used a 'cystic fibrosis' test collection with 100 queries. Experiment 1 compared a Boolean with a ranked interactive system using a subject qualified trained searcher, and reporting recall and precision results. Experiment 2 compared 15 different ranked match algorithms in a batch mode using 2 test collections, and included some new proximate pairs and term weighting approaches. Experiment 3 is a design plan for an interactive ranked prototype offering mid search algorithm choices plus other manual search devices (such as obligatory and unwanted terms), as influenced by thinking aloud comments from experiment 1. Concludes that, in Boolean versus ranked using inverse collection frequency, the searcher inspected more records on ranked than Boolean and so achieved a higher recall but lower precision; however, the presentation order of the relevant records, was, on average, very similar in both systems. Concludes also that: query reformulation was quite strongly practised in ranked searching but does not appear to have been effective; the term pairs proximate weithing methods in experiment 2 enhanced precision on both test collections when used with inverse collection frequency weighting (ICF); and the design plan for an interactive prototype adds to a selection of match algorithms other devices, such as obligatory and unwanted term marking, evidence for this being found from think aloud comments