-
Salton, G.; Lesk, M.E.: Computer evaluation of indexing and text processing (1968)
0.29
0.29082578 = product of:
0.38776773 = sum of:
0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022096837 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.19179249 = weight(_text_:computing in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19179249 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.73337615 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.17387839 = product of:
0.34775677 = sum of:
0.34775677 = weight(_text_:machinery in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.34775677 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35214928 = queryWeight, product of:
7.448392 = idf(docFreq=69, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.9875266 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.448392 = idf(docFreq=69, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery. 15(1968), S.8-36
-
Blair, D.C.; Maron, M.E.: ¬An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system (1985)
0.25
0.24807532 = product of:
0.3307671 = sum of:
0.026041372 = weight(_text_:for in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026041372 = score(doc=1345,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.29336601 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
0.15982707 = weight(_text_:computing in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15982707 = score(doc=1345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.6111468 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
0.14489865 = product of:
0.2897973 = sum of:
0.2897973 = weight(_text_:machinery in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.2897973 = score(doc=1345,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35214928 = queryWeight, product of:
7.448392 = idf(docFreq=69, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.8229388 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.448392 = idf(docFreq=69, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Source
- Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery. 28(1985), S.280-299
-
Losee, R.M.: Determining information retrieval and filtering performance without experimentation (1995)
0.12
0.124404006 = product of:
0.16587201 = sum of:
0.031573486 = weight(_text_:for in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031573486 = score(doc=3368,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.35568738 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
0.111878954 = weight(_text_:computing in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.111878954 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.42780277 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
0.022419576 = product of:
0.04483915 = sum of:
0.04483915 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04483915 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = 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)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- 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
-
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)
0.05
0.053472333 = product of:
0.106944665 = sum of:
0.0110484185 = weight(_text_:for in 5202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0110484185 = score(doc=5202,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.12446466 = fieldWeight in 5202, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5202)
0.095896244 = weight(_text_:computing in 5202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.095896244 = score(doc=5202,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.36668807 = fieldWeight in 5202, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5202)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.3, S.206-216
-
López-Ostenero, F.; Peinado, V.; Gonzalo, J.; Verdejo, F.: Interactive question answering : Is Cross-Language harder than monolingual searching? (2008)
0.05
0.051282007 = product of:
0.102564014 = sum of:
0.015624823 = weight(_text_:for in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015624823 = score(doc=2023,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.17601961 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
0.08693919 = product of:
0.17387839 = sum of:
0.17387839 = weight(_text_:machinery in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17387839 = score(doc=2023,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35214928 = queryWeight, product of:
7.448392 = idf(docFreq=69, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.4937633 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.448392 = idf(docFreq=69, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Is Cross-Language answer finding harder than Monolingual answer finding for users? In this paper we provide initial quantitative and qualitative evidence to answer this question. In our study, which involves 16 users searching questions under four different system conditions, we find that interactive cross-language answer finding is not substantially harder (in terms of accuracy) than its monolingual counterpart, using general purpose Machine Translation systems and standard Information Retrieval machinery, although it takes more time. We have also seen that users need more context to provide accurate answers (full documents) than what is usually considered by systems (paragraphs or passages). Finally, we also discuss the limitations of standard evaluation methodologies for interactive Information Retrieval experiments in the case of cross-language question answering.
-
Davis, M.: New experiments in cross-language text retrieval at NMSU's computing research lab (1997)
0.05
0.047948122 = product of:
0.19179249 = sum of:
0.19179249 = weight(_text_:computing in 3111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19179249 = score(doc=3111,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.73337615 = fieldWeight in 3111, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3111)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Borgman, C.L.: Why are online catalogs still hard to use? (1996)
0.04
0.042381965 = product of:
0.08476393 = sum of:
0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 4380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020833097 = score(doc=4380,freq=16.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 4380, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4380)
0.06393083 = weight(_text_:computing in 4380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06393083 = score(doc=4380,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26151994 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.24445872 = fieldWeight in 4380, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5314693 = idf(docFreq=475, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4380)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- We return to arguments made 10 years ago that online catalogs are difficult to use because their design does not incorporate sufficient understanding of searching behavior. The earlier article examined studies of information retrieval system searching for their implications for online catalog design; this article examines the implications of card catalog design for online catalogs. With this analysis, we hope to contribute to a better understanding of user behavior and to lay to rest the card catalog design model for online catalogs. We discuss the problems with query matching systems, which were designed for skilled search intermediaries rather than end-users, and the knowledge and skills they require in the information-seeking process, illustrated with examples of searching card and online catalogs. Searching requires conceptual knowledge of the information retrieval process - translating an information need into a searchable query; semantic knowledge of how to implement a query in a given system - the how and when to use system features; and technical skills in executing the query - basic computing skills and the syntax of entering queries as specific search statements. In the short term, we can help make online catalogs easier to use through improved training and documentation that is based on information-seeking bahavior, with the caveat that good training is not a substitute for good system design. Our long term goal should be to design intuitive systems that require a minimum of instruction. Given the complexity of the information retrieval problem and the limited capabilities of today's systems, we are far from achieving that goal. If libraries are to provide primary information services for the networked world, they need to put research results on the information-seeking process into practice in designing the next generation of online public access information retrieval systems
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.7, S.493-503
-
Lioma, C.; Ounis, I.: ¬A syntactically-based query reformulation technique for information retrieval (2008)
0.04
0.037214737 = product of:
0.074429475 = sum of:
0.01647001 = weight(_text_:for in 2031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01647001 = score(doc=2031,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.18554096 = fieldWeight in 2031, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2031)
0.057959463 = product of:
0.11591893 = sum of:
0.11591893 = weight(_text_:machinery in 2031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11591893 = score(doc=2031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35214928 = queryWeight, product of:
7.448392 = idf(docFreq=69, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.32917553 = fieldWeight in 2031, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.448392 = idf(docFreq=69, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2031)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Whereas in language words of high frequency are generally associated with low content [Bookstein, A., & Swanson, D. (1974). Probabilistic models for automatic indexing. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 25(5), 312-318; Damerau, F. J. (1965). An experiment in automatic indexing. American Documentation, 16, 283-289; Harter, S. P. (1974). A probabilistic approach to automatic keyword indexing. PhD thesis, University of Chicago; Sparck-Jones, K. (1972). A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 28, 11-21; Yu, C., & Salton, G. (1976). Precision weighting - an effective automatic indexing method. Journal of the Association for Computer Machinery (ACM), 23(1), 76-88], shallow syntactic fragments of high frequency generally correspond to lexical fragments of high content [Lioma, C., & Ounis, I. (2006). Examining the content load of part of speech blocks for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the international committee on computational linguistics and the association for computational linguistics (COLING/ACL 2006), Sydney, Australia]. We implement this finding to Information Retrieval, as follows. We present a novel automatic query reformulation technique, which is based on shallow syntactic evidence induced from various language samples, and used to enhance the performance of an Information Retrieval system. Firstly, we draw shallow syntactic evidence from language samples of varying size, and compare the effect of language sample size upon retrieval performance, when using our syntactically-based query reformulation (SQR) technique. Secondly, we compare SQR to a state-of-the-art probabilistic pseudo-relevance feedback technique. Additionally, we combine both techniques and evaluate their compatibility. We evaluate our proposed technique across two standard Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) English test collections, and three statistically different weighting models. Experimental results suggest that SQR markedly enhances retrieval performance, and is at least comparable to pseudo-relevance feedback. Notably, the combination of SQR and pseudo-relevance feedback further enhances retrieval performance considerably. These collective experimental results confirm the tenet that high frequency shallow syntactic fragments correspond to content-bearing lexical fragments.
-
Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990)
0.04
0.035309397 = product of:
0.07061879 = sum of:
0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025779642 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
0.04483915 = product of:
0.0896783 = sum of:
0.0896783 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0896783 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:43:54
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.4, S.272-281
-
Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983)
0.03
0.02903467 = product of:
0.05806934 = sum of:
0.026041372 = weight(_text_:for in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026041372 = score(doc=2417,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.29336601 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
0.032027967 = product of:
0.064055935 = sum of:
0.064055935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064055935 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Pages
- S.22-25
- Series
- Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol. 20
-
¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003)
0.03
0.02754241 = product of:
0.05508482 = sum of:
0.02946245 = weight(_text_:for in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02946245 = score(doc=4049,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.33190575 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
0.025622372 = product of:
0.051244743 = sum of:
0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051244743 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Proceedings of the llth TREC-conference held in Gaithersburg, Maryland (USA), November 19-22, 2002. Aim of the conference was discussion an retrieval and related information-seeking tasks for large test collection. 93 research groups used different techniques, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The tasks are: Cross-language searching, filtering, interactive searching, searching for novelty, question answering, searching for video shots, and Web searching.
-
Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬A test for the separation of relevant and non-relevant documents in experimental retrieval collections (1973)
0.03
0.025568802 = product of:
0.051137604 = sum of:
0.02551523 = weight(_text_:for in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02551523 = score(doc=5002,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.28743884 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
0.025622372 = product of:
0.051244743 = sum of:
0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051244743 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Many retrievalexperiments are intended to discover ways of improving performance, taking the results obtained with some particular technique as a baseline. The fact that substantial alterations to a system often have little or no effect on particular collections is puzzling. This may be due to the initially poor seperation of relevant and non-relevant documents. The paper presents a procedure for characterizing this seperation for a collection, which can be used to show whether proposed modifications of the base system are likely to be useful.
- Date
- 19. 3.1996 11:22:12
-
Ng, K.B.; Loewenstern, D.; Basu, C.; Hirsh, H.; Kantor, P.B.: Data fusion of machine-learning methods for the TREC5 routing tak (and other work) (1997)
0.03
0.025220998 = product of:
0.050441995 = sum of:
0.01841403 = weight(_text_:for in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01841403 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.20744109 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
0.032027967 = product of:
0.064055935 = sum of:
0.064055935 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064055935 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 27. 2.1999 20:59:22
-
Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997)
0.02
0.023227734 = product of:
0.04645547 = sum of:
0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020833097 = score(doc=744,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
0.025622372 = product of:
0.051244743 = sum of:
0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051244743 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
¬The Fifth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-5) (1997)
0.02
0.023227734 = product of:
0.04645547 = sum of:
0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020833097 = score(doc=3087,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
0.025622372 = product of:
0.051244743 = sum of:
0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051244743 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Pemberton, J.K.; Ojala, M.; Garman, N.: Head to head : searching the Web versus traditional services (1998)
0.02
0.023227734 = product of:
0.04645547 = sum of:
0.020833097 = weight(_text_:for in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020833097 = score(doc=3572,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.23469281 = fieldWeight in 3572, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3572)
0.025622372 = product of:
0.051244743 = sum of:
0.051244743 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051244743 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Describes of 3 searches on the topic of virtual communities done on the WWW using HotBot and traditional databases using LEXIS-NEXIS and ABI/Inform. Concludes that the WWW is a good starting place for a broad concept search but the traditional services are better for more precise topics
- Source
- Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28
-
Blair, D.C.: STAIRS Redux : thoughts on the STAIRS evaluation, ten years after (1996)
0.02
0.0223727 = product of:
0.0447454 = sum of:
0.022325827 = weight(_text_:for in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022325827 = score(doc=3002,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.25150898 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
0.022419576 = product of:
0.04483915 = sum of:
0.04483915 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04483915 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011)
0.02
0.021027677 = product of:
0.042055354 = sum of:
0.026041372 = weight(_text_:for in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026041372 = score(doc=4197,freq=16.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.29336601 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
0.016013984 = product of:
0.032027967 = sum of:
0.032027967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032027967 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4197, 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=4197)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) provides a TREC-like platform for evaluating content-oriented XML retrieval systems. Since 2007, INEX has been using a set of precision-recall based metrics for its ad hoc tasks. The authors investigate the reliability and robustness of these focused retrieval measures, and of the INEX pooling method. They explore four specific questions: How reliable are the metrics when assessments are incomplete, or when query sets are small? What is the minimum pool/query-set size that can be used to reliably evaluate systems? Can the INEX collections be used to fairly evaluate "new" systems that did not participate in the pooling process? And, for a fixed amount of assessment effort, would this effort be better spent in thoroughly judging a few queries, or in judging many queries relatively superficially? The authors' findings validate properties of precision-recall-based metrics observed in document retrieval settings. Early precision measures are found to be more error-prone and less stable under incomplete judgments and small topic-set sizes. They also find that system rankings remain largely unaffected even when assessment effort is substantially (but systematically) reduced, and confirm that the INEX collections remain usable when evaluating nonparticipating systems. Finally, they observe that for a fixed amount of effort, judging shallow pools for many queries is better than judging deep pools for a smaller set of queries. However, when judging only a random sample of a pool, it is better to completely judge fewer topics than to partially judge many topics. This result confirms the effectiveness of pooling methods.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:20:56
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.375-394
-
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)
0.02
0.020656807 = product of:
0.041313615 = sum of:
0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022096837 = score(doc=4341,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
0.019216778 = product of:
0.038433556 = sum of:
0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038433556 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Brown, M.E.: By any other name : accounting for failure in the naming of subject categories (1995)
0.02
0.020324267 = product of:
0.040648535 = sum of:
0.01822896 = weight(_text_:for in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01822896 = score(doc=5598,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = queryNorm
0.20535621 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
0.022419576 = product of:
0.04483915 = sum of:
0.04483915 = weight(_text_:22 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04483915 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047278564 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
