-
Hodges, P.R.: Keyword in title indexes : effectiveness of retrieval in computer searches (1983)
0.04
0.0440901 = product of:
0.0881802 = sum of:
0.0881802 = sum of:
0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045021407 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550679 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043158792 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550679 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.
- Date
- 14. 3.1996 13:22:21
-
Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984)
0.02
0.021579396 = product of:
0.043158792 = sum of:
0.043158792 = product of:
0.086317584 = sum of:
0.086317584 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086317584 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550679 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, 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=262)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20.10.2000 12:22:23
-
Lepsky, K.; Siepmann, J.; Zimmermann, A.: Automatische Indexierung für Online-Kataloge : Ergebnisse eines Retrievaltests (1996)
0.01
0.011255352 = product of:
0.022510704 = sum of:
0.022510704 = product of:
0.045021407 = sum of:
0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045021407 = score(doc=3251,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550679 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 3251, 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=3251)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Examines the effectiveness of automated indexing and presents the results of a study of information retrieval from a segment (40.000 items) of the ULB Düsseldorf database. The segment was selected randomly and all the documents included were indexed automatically. The search topics included 50 subject areas ranging from economic growth to alternative energy sources. While there were 876 relevant documents in the database segment for each of the 50 search topics, the recall ranged from 1 to 244 references, with the average being 17.52 documents per topic. Therefore it seems that, in the immediate future, automatic indexing should be used in combination with intellectual indexing
-
Munkelt, J.; Schaer, P.; Lepsky, K.: Towards an IR test collection for the German National Library (2018)
0.01
0.009647444 = product of:
0.019294888 = sum of:
0.019294888 = product of:
0.038589776 = sum of:
0.038589776 = weight(_text_:subject in 4311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038589776 = score(doc=4311,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550679 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4311, 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=4311)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Automatic content indexing is one of the innovations that are increasingly changing the way libraries work. In theory, it promises a cataloguing service that would hardly be possible with humans in terms of speed, quantity and maybe quality. The German National Library (DNB) has also recognised this potential and is increasingly relying on the automatic indexing of their catalogue content. The DNB took a major step in this direction in 2017, which was announced in two papers. The announcement was rather restrained, but the content of the papers is all the more explosive for the library community: Since September 2017, the DNB has discontinued the intellectual indexing of series Band H and has switched to an automatic process for these series. The subject indexing of online publications (series O) has been purely automatical since 2010; from September 2017, monographs and periodicals published outside the publishing industry and university publications will no longer be indexed by people. This raises the question: What is the quality of the automatic indexing compared to the manual work or in other words to which degree can the automatic indexing replace people without a signi cant drop in regards to quality?
-
Toepfer, M.; Seifert, C.: Content-based quality estimation for automatic subject indexing of short texts under precision and recall constraints
0.01
0.008039537 = product of:
0.016079074 = sum of:
0.016079074 = product of:
0.032158148 = sum of:
0.032158148 = weight(_text_:subject in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032158148 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550679 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
