Search (162 results, page 2 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Rokaya, M.; Atlam, E.; Fuketa, M.; Dorji, T.C.; Aoe, J.-i.: Ranking of field association terms using Co-word analysis (2008) 0.03 
    0.028236724 = product of:
  0.05647345 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 2060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=2060,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2060, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2060)
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 2060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=2060,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2060, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Information retrieval involves finding some desired information in a store of information or a database. In this paper, Co-word analysis will be used to achieve a ranking of a selected sample of FA terms. Based on this ranking a better arranging of search results can be achieved. Experimental results achieved using 41 MB of data (7660 documents) in the field of sports. The corpus was collected from CNN newspaper, sports field. This corpus was chosen to be distributed over 11 sub-fields of the field sports from the experimental results, the average precision increased by 18.3% after applying the proposed arranging scheme depending on the absolute frequency to count the terms weights, and the average precision increased by 17.2% after applying the proposed arranging scheme depending on a formula based on "TF*IDF" to count the terms weights.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.738-755
  2. Losee, R.M.: Determining information retrieval and filtering performance without experimentation (1995) 0.03 
    0.02594015 = product of:
  0.1037606 = sum of:
    0.1037606 = sum of:
      0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05934933 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
      0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044411276 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 2.1996 13:14:10
    Source
    Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.4, S.555-572
  3. Díaz, A.; García, A.; Gervás, P.: User-centred versus system-centred evaluation of a personalization system (2008) 0.02 
    0.023530604 = product of:
  0.04706121 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.021196188 = product of:
      0.042392377 = sum of:
        0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042392377 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Some of the most popular measures to evaluate information filtering systems are usually independent of the users because they are based in relevance judgments obtained from experts. On the other hand, the user-centred evaluation allows showing the different impressions that the users have perceived about the system running. This work is focused on discussing the problem of user-centred versus system-centred evaluation of a Web content personalization system where the personalization is based on a user model that stores long term (section, categories and keywords) and short term interests (adapted from user provided feedback). The user-centred evaluation is based on questionnaires filled in by the users before and after using the system and the system-centred evaluation is based on the comparison between ranking of documents, obtained from the application of a multi-tier selection process, and binary relevance judgments collected previously from real users. The user-centred and system-centred evaluations performed with 106 users during 14 working days have provided valuable data concerning the behaviour of the users with respect to issues such as document relevance or the relative importance attributed to different ways of personalization. The results obtained shows general satisfaction on both the personalization processes (selection, adaptation and presentation) and the system as a whole.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.3, S.1293-1307
  4. Iivonen, M.: Consistency in the selection of search concepts and search terms (1995) 0.02 
    0.022234414 = product of:
  0.088937655 = sum of:
    0.088937655 = sum of:
      0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05087085 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
      0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038066804 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions
    Source
    Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.2, S.173-190
  5. Rao, A.; Lu, A.; Meier, E.; Ahmed, S.; Pliske, D.: Query processing in TREC6 (2000) 0.02 
    0.020983158 = product of:
  0.08393263 = sum of:
    0.08393263 = product of:
      0.16786526 = sum of:
        0.16786526 = weight(_text_:processing in 6420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16786526 = score(doc=6420,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.8855322 = fieldWeight in 6420, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.179-186
  6. Van der Walt, H.E.A.; Brakel, P.A. van: Method for the evaluation of the retrieval effectiveness of a CD-ROM bibliographic database (1991) 0.02 
    0.02024258 = product of:
  0.08097032 = sum of:
    0.08097032 = weight(_text_:data in 3114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08097032 = score(doc=3114,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.5468357 = fieldWeight in 3114, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3114)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Addresses the problem of how potential users of CD-ROM data bases can objectively establish which version of the same data base is best suited for a specific situation. The problem was solved by applying the retrieval effectiveness of current on-line data base search systems as a standard measurement. 5 search queries from the medical sciences were presented by experienced users of MEDLINE. Search strategies were written for both DIALOG and DATA-STAR. Search results were compared to create a recall base from documents present in both on-line searches. This recall base was then used to establish the retrieval and precision of 4 CD-ROM data bases: MEDLINE, Compact Cambrdge MEDLINE, DIALOG OnDisc, Comprehensive MEDLINE/EBSCO
  7. Petrelli, D.: On the role of user-centred evaluation in the advancement of interactive information retrieval (2008) 0.02 
    0.01852868 = product of:
  0.07411472 = sum of:
    0.07411472 = sum of:
      0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042392377 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
      0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03172234 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046827413 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38
  8. Evans, D.A.; Lefferts, R.G.: CLARIT-TREC experiments (1995) 0.02 
    0.018356439 = product of:
  0.073425755 = sum of:
    0.073425755 = product of:
      0.14685151 = sum of:
        0.14685151 = weight(_text_:processing in 1912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14685151 = score(doc=1912,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.7746793 = fieldWeight in 1912, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1912)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Describes the following elements of the CLARIT system information management system: natural language processing, document indexing, vector space querying and query augmentation. Reports on the processing results carried out as part of the TREC-2 and into system parameterization. Results demonstrate high prescision and excellent recall, but the system is not yet optimized
    Source
    Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.3, S.385-395
  9. Wilbur, W.J.: Global term weights for document retrieval learned from TREC data (2001) 0.02 
    0.018105512 = product of:
  0.07242205 = sum of:
    0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07242205 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  10. Feng, S.: ¬A comparative study of indexing languages in single and multidatabase searching (1989) 0.02 
    0.017919812 = product of:
  0.07167925 = sum of:
    0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07167925 = score(doc=2494,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An experiment was conducted using 3 data bases in library and information science - Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Information Science Abstracts and ERIC - to investigate some of the main factors affecting on-line searching: effectiveness of search vocabularies, combinations of fields searched, and overlaps among databases. Natural language, controlled vocabulary and a mixture of natural language and controlled terms were tested using different fields of bibliographic records. Also discusses a comparative evaluation of single and multi-data base searching, measuring the overlap among data bases and their influence upon on-line searching.
  11. Logan, E.: Cognitive styles and online behaviour of novice searchers (1990) 0.02 
    0.016956951 = product of:
  0.067827806 = sum of:
    0.067827806 = product of:
      0.13565561 = sum of:
        0.13565561 = weight(_text_:processing in 6891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13565561 = score(doc=6891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.7156181 = fieldWeight in 6891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 26(1990), S.503-510
  12. Cooper, W.S.: ¬The paradoxal role of unexamined documents in the evaluation of retrieval effectiveness (1976) 0.02 
    0.016956951 = product of:
  0.067827806 = sum of:
    0.067827806 = product of:
      0.13565561 = sum of:
        0.13565561 = weight(_text_:processing in 2186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13565561 = score(doc=2186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.7156181 = fieldWeight in 2186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 12(1976), S.367-375
  13. Wildemuth, B.M.: Measures of success in searching a full-text fact base (1990) 0.02 
    0.015679834 = product of:
  0.06271934 = sum of:
    0.06271934 = weight(_text_:data in 2050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06271934 = score(doc=2050,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 2050, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2050)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The traditional measures of online searching proficiency (recall and precision) are less appropriate when applied to the searching of full text databases. The pilot study investigated and evaluated 5 measures of overall success in searching a full text data bank. Data was drawn from INQUIRER searches conducted by medical students at North Carolina Univ. at Chapel Hill. INQUIRER ia an online database of facts and concepts in microbiology. The 5 measures were: success/failure; precision; search term overlap; number of search cycles; and time per search. Concludes that the last 4 measures look promising for the evaluation of fact data bases such as ENQUIRER
  14. Schabas, A.H.: ¬A comparative evaluation of the retrieval effectiveness of titles, Library of Congress Subject Headings and PRECIS strings for computer searching of UK MARC data (1979) 0.02 
    0.015519011 = product of:
  0.062076043 = sum of:
    0.062076043 = weight(_text_:data in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062076043 = score(doc=5277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 5277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5277)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  15. Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.; Slough, M.: ¬A comparison of indexing and full-text for the retrieval of clinical medical literature (1988) 0.02 
    0.015519011 = product of:
  0.062076043 = sum of:
    0.062076043 = weight(_text_:data in 3563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062076043 = score(doc=3563,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 3563, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3563)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The availability of two full text data bases in the clinical medical journal literature, MEDIS from Mead Data Central and CCML from BRS Information Technologies, provided an opportunity to compare the efficacy of the full text to the traditional, indexed system, MEDLINE for retrieval effectiveness. 100 searches were solicited from an academic health sciences library and the request were searched on all 3 data bases. The results were compared and preliminary analysis suggests that the full text data bases retrieve a greater number of relevant citations and MEDLINE achieves higher precision.
  16. Savoy, J.; Calvé, A. le; Vrajitoru, D.: Report on the TREC5 experiment : data fusion and collection fusion (1997) 0.02 
    0.015519011 = product of:
  0.062076043 = sum of:
    0.062076043 = weight(_text_:data in 3108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062076043 = score(doc=3108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 3108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  17. Hersh, W.R.; Over, P.: Interactivity at the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) (2001) 0.01 
    0.014837332 = product of:
  0.05934933 = sum of:
    0.05934933 = product of:
      0.11869866 = sum of:
        0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 5486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11869866 = score(doc=5486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 5486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.3, S.365-367
  18. Over, P.: ¬The TREC interactive track : an annotated bibliography (2001) 0.01 
    0.014837332 = product of:
  0.05934933 = sum of:
    0.05934933 = product of:
      0.11869866 = sum of:
        0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 5572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11869866 = score(doc=5572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 5572, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.3, S.369-381
  19. Voorhees, E.M.: Variations in relevance judgements and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness (2000) 0.01 
    0.014837332 = product of:
  0.05934933 = sum of:
    0.05934933 = product of:
      0.11869866 = sum of:
        0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 8710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11869866 = score(doc=8710,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 8710, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.5, S.697-716
  20. Smeaton, A.F.: TREC-6: personal highlights (2000) 0.01 
    0.014837332 = product of:
  0.05934933 = sum of:
    0.05934933 = product of:
      0.11869866 = sum of:
        0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 6439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11869866 = score(doc=6439,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 6439, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.87-94

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 156
  • d 4
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 148
  • s 9
  • m 5
  • el 2
  • d 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications