Search (77 results, page 1 of 4)

0.030601608 = product of:
  0.11220589 = sum of:
    0.07568369 = weight(_text_:effect in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07568369 = score(doc=4088,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
    0.018066432 = weight(_text_:of in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018066432 = score(doc=4088,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
    0.018455777 = weight(_text_:on in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018455777 = score(doc=4088,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

So far, methods for ellipsis and anaphor resolution have been developed and the effects of anaphor resolution have been analyzed in the context of statistical information retrieval of scientific abstracts. No significant improvements has been observed. Analyzes the effects of ellipsis and anaphor resolution on proximity searching in a full text database. Anaphora and ellipsis are classified on the basis of the type of their correlates / antecedents rather than, as traditional, on the basis of their own linguistic type. The classification differentiates proper names and common nouns of basic words, compound words, and phrases. The study was carried out in a newspaper article database containing 55.000 full text articles. A set of 154 keyword pairs in different categories was created. Human resolution of keyword ellipsis and anaphora was performed to identify sentences and paragraphs which would match proximity searches after resolution. Findings indicate that ellipsis and anaphor resolution is most relevant for proper name phrases and only marginal in the other keyword categories. Therefore the recall effect of restricted resolution of proper name phrases only was analyzed for keyword pairs containing at least 1 proper name phrase. Findings indicate a recall increase of 38.2% in sentence searches, and 28.8% in paragraph searches when proper name ellipsis were resolved. The recall increase was 17.6% sentence searches, and 19.8% in paragraph searches when proper name anaphora were resolved. Some simple and computationally justifiable resolution method might be developed only for proper name phrases to support keyword based full text information retrieval. Discusses elements of such a method

0.012352291 = product of:
  0.04529173 = sum of:
    0.020182718 = weight(_text_:of in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020182718 = score(doc=3564,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
    0.014035545 = product of:
      0.02807109 = sum of:
        0.02807109 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807109 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, 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=3564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Searches conducted as part of the MEDLINE/Full-Text Research Project revealed that the full-text data bases of clinical medical journal articles (CCML (Comprehensive Core Medical Library) from BRS Information Technologies, and MEDIS from Mead Data Central) did not retrieve all the relevant citations. An analysis of the data indicated that 204 relevant citations were retrieved only by MEDLINE. A comparison of the strategies used on the full-text data bases with the text of the articles of these 204 citations revealed that 2 reasons contributed to these failure. The searcher often constructed a restrictive strategy which resulted in the loss of relevant documents; and as in other kinds of retrieval, the problems of natural language caused the loss of relevant documents.

Date

9. 1.1996 10:22:31

Source

ASIS'89. Managing information and technology. Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Washington D.C., 30.10.-2.11.1989. Vol.26. Ed.by J. Katzer and G.B. Newby

0.008578276 = product of:
  0.04718052 = sum of:
    0.025033582 = weight(_text_:of in 4030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025033582 = score(doc=4030,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46359703 = fieldWeight in 4030, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4030)
    0.022146935 = weight(_text_:on in 4030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022146935 = score(doc=4030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 4030, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4030)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 39(1988), S.73-78

0.007558469 = product of:
  0.04157158 = sum of:
    0.015471167 = weight(_text_:of in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015471167 = score(doc=3868,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
    0.026100414 = weight(_text_:on in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026100414 = score(doc=3868,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3436586 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This paper reports on an analysis of the loss levels that would result if a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI), were missing the subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by its professional indexers, employing the methodology developed by Gross and Taylor (2005), and later by Gross et al. (2015). The results indicate that AEI users would lose a similar proportion of hits per query to that experienced by library catalog users: on average, 27% of the resources found by a sample of keyword queries on the AEI database would not have been found without the subject indexing, based on the Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors (ATED). The paper also discusses the methodological limitations of these studies, pointing out that real-life users might still find some of the resources missed by a particular query through follow-up searches, while additional resources might also be found through iterative searching on the subject vocabulary. The paper goes on to describe a new research design, based on a before - and - after experiment, which addresses some of these limitations. It is argued that this alternative design will provide a more realistic picture of the value that professionally assigned subject indexing and controlled subject vocabularies can add to literature searching of a more scholarly and thorough kind.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.007386743 = product of:
  0.040627085 = sum of:
    0.019746756 = weight(_text_:of in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019746756 = score(doc=751,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
    0.02088033 = weight(_text_:on in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02088033 = score(doc=751,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Dow Jones Interactive Publishing has developed a sophisticated automatic knowledge indexing system that will allow searchers of the Dow Jones News / Retrieval service to get highly targeted results from a search in the service's Publications Library. Instead of relying on a thesaurus of company names, the new system uses a combination of that basic algorithm plus unique rules based on the editorial styles of individual publications in the Library. Dow Jones have also announced its acceptance of the definitions of 'selected full text' and 'full text' from Bibliodata's Fulltext Sources Online directory

0.0072880606 = product of:
  0.040084332 = sum of:
    0.010555085 = weight(_text_:of in 7737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010555085 = score(doc=7737,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 7737, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7737)
    0.029529246 = weight(_text_:on in 7737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029529246 = score(doc=7737,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 7737, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7737)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Reviews developments in full text databases in 1996. Online services are differentiated through quantity rather than niche specializations of content. Full text databases are appearing on the WWW. Examines examples of trade magazine on the WWW from the networking and data communications area. Covers: Networks World Fusion; Data Communications on the Web; Communications Week Interactive; Network Computing Online; LAN Times Online and LAN on the Web

0.0070000663 = product of:
  0.038500365 = sum of:
    0.012927286 = weight(_text_:of in 2048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012927286 = score(doc=2048,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2048, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2048)
    0.025573079 = weight(_text_:on in 2048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025573079 = score(doc=2048,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 2048, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2048)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Free text and controlled vocabulary searching can no longer be viewed as antagonistic techniques in information retrieval since they both display advantages and weaknesses dependent on a fairly wide range of context, with the option to use both increasingly favoured. An attempt is made to present a list of features associated with the two techniques and to suggest a methodology to assist in deciding on the optimal retrieval technique for a particular purpose. The relevance of the techniques in expert systems and full text contexts is also discussed. Finally, recommendations for further research are suggested, concentrating on survey techniques in real-life retrieval situations

0.0068379203 = product of:
  0.03760856 = sum of:
    0.013193856 = weight(_text_:of in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013193856 = score(doc=4300,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
    0.024414703 = weight(_text_:on in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024414703 = score(doc=4300,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3214632 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This article reports on an investigation of the search value that subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by professional indexers add to a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI). First, a similar methodology to that developed by Gross et al. (2015) was applied, with keyword searches representing a range of educational topics run on the AEI database with and without its subject indexing. The results indicated that AEI users would also lose, on average, about a quarter of hits per query. Second, an alternative research design was applied in which an experienced literature searcher was asked to find resources on a set of educational topics on an AEI database stripped of its subject indexing and then asked to search for additional resources on the same topics after the subject indexing had been reinserted. In this study, the proportion of additional resources that would have been lost had it not been for the subject indexing was again found to be about a quarter of the total resources found for each topic, on average.

0.0067917104 = product of:
  0.037354406 = sum of:
    0.024435362 = weight(_text_:of in 2049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024435362 = score(doc=2049,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.45251858 = fieldWeight in 2049, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2049)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 2049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=2049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 2049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2049)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Given the phenomena of growth and diversification which affect both text databases and their users, it is essential to reflect on the nature of textual information and its representation within the very particular framework of interactive retrieval systems. The latter aim to correlate two types of conceptual structures, that of the user and that of the text, by way of a third structure - the interface. A typology of levels, of representation is proposed (typographical, lexical, statistical, linguistic, semiotic, and pragmatic). These representations, obtained by means of a multiplicity of strategies (intra-sentence, intratextual, intertextual) applied to different units of information and interrelated, render the interaction between diverse users and the database more flexible and more adaptable

0.0064000036 = product of:
  0.03520002 = sum of:
    0.02597213 = weight(_text_:of in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02597213 = score(doc=4214,freq=62.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.480978 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          7.8740077 = tf(freq=62.0), with freq of:
            62.0 = termFreq=62.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

An important stage in the process or retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objects; this operation is often undertaken manually, just as index terms are often manually assigned to documents in a conventional retrieval system. In an earlier article (1994), the results were published of a study in which several different sets of links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full-text documents. These results showed little similarity between the link-sets, a finding that was comparable with those of studies of inter-indexer consistency, which suggest that there is generally only a low level of agreement between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by different indexers. In this article, a description is provided of an investigation into the nature of the relationship existing between (i) the levels of inter-linker consistency obtaining among the group of hypertext databases used in our earlier experiments, and (ii) the levels of effectiveness of a number of searches carried out in those databases. An account is given of the implementation of the searches and of the methods used in the calculation of numerical values expressing their effectiveness. Analysis of the results of a comparison between recorded levels of consistency and those of effectiveness does not allow us to draw conclusions about the consistency - effectiveness relationship that are equivalent to those drawn in comparable studies of inter-indexer consistency

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.287-300

0.0062747966 = product of:
  0.03451138 = sum of:
    0.019746756 = weight(_text_:of in 2877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019746756 = score(doc=2877,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2877, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2877)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 2877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=2877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2877, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2877)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Reports the result of a brief review of West German full text data bases and a user survey of over 40 users in the fields of medicine, law and economics. Questions common assumptions about the advantages and disadvantages of full text data bases.

Source

Online Information 89. Proceedings of the 13th International Online Information Meeting, London, 12-14 December 1989

0.006190838 = product of:
  0.034049608 = sum of:
    0.018066432 = weight(_text_:of in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018066432 = score(doc=4721,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=4721,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

In order to compare the value of subject descriptors and title keywords as entries to subject searches, two studies were carried out. Both studies concentrated on monographs in the humanities and social sciences, held by the online public access catalogue of the National Library of the Netherlands. In the first study, a comparison was made by subject librarians between the subject descriptors and the title keywords of 475 records. They could express their opinion on a scale from 1 (descriptor is exactly or almost the same as word in title) to 7 (descriptor does not appear in title at all). It was concluded that 37 per cent of the records are considerably enhanced by a subject descriptor, and 49 per cent slightly or considerably enhanced. In the second study, subject librarians performed subject searches using title keywords and subject descriptors on the same topic. The relative recall amounted to 48 per cent and 86 per cent respectively. Failure analysis revealed the reasons why so many records that were found by subject descriptors were not found by title keywords. First, although completely meaningless titles hardly ever appear, the title of a publication does not always offer sufficient clues for title keyword searching. In those cases, descriptors may enhance the record of a publication. A second and even more important task of subject descriptors is controlling the vocabulary. Many relevant titles cannot be retrieved by title keyword searching because of the wide diversity of ways of expressing a topic. Descriptors take away the burden of vocabulary control from the user.

Source

Journal of documentation. 54(1998) no.4, S.466-476

0.006125058 = product of:
  0.03368782 = sum of:
    0.011311376 = weight(_text_:of in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011311376 = score(doc=5181,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
    0.022376444 = weight(_text_:on in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022376444 = score(doc=5181,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Examines how, for term based free text retrieval, Interactive Query Expansion (IQE) provides better retrieval performance tahn Automatic Query Expansion (AQE) but the performance of IQE depends on the strategy employed by the user to select expansion terms. The aim is to build an expert query expansion system using term selection rules based on expert users' strategies. It is expected that such a system will achieve better performance for novice or inexperienced users that either AQE or IQE. The procedure is to discover expert IQE users' term selection strategies through observation and interrogation, to construct a rule based query expansion (RQE) system based on these and to compare the resulting retrieval performance with that of comparable AQE and IQE systems

Source

New review of document and text management. 1995, no.1, S.63-83

0.006065757 = product of:
  0.033361662 = sum of:
    0.017701415 = weight(_text_:of in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017701415 = score(doc=8524,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 8524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=8524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 8524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8524)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Examines how techniques in the field of natural language processing can be applied to the analysis of text in information retrieval. State of the art text searching programs cannot distinguish, for example, between occurrences of the sickness, AIDS and aids as tool or between library school and school nor equate such terms as online or on-line which are variants of the same form. To make these distinction, systems must incorporate knowledge about the meaning of words in context. Research in natural language processing has concentrated on the automatic 'understanding' of language; how to analyze the grammatical structure and meaning of text. Although many asoects of this research remain experimental, describes how these techniques to recognize spelling variants, names, acronyms, and abbreviations

Source

Proceedings of the 15th National Online Meeting 1994, New York, 10-12 May 1994. Ed. by M.E. Williams

0.0060622357 = product of:
  0.033342294 = sum of:
    0.011195358 = weight(_text_:of in 465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011195358 = score(doc=465,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 465, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=465)
    0.022146935 = weight(_text_:on in 465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022146935 = score(doc=465,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 465, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=465)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

0.0060084667 = product of:
  0.033046566 = sum of:
    0.018281942 = weight(_text_:of in 2424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018281942 = score(doc=2424,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2424, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2424)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 2424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=2424,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2424, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2424)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

State of the art review of the development of full text databases, encompassing: types of commercially available full text databases; online systems for full text databases; CD-ROM databases for full text databases; full text databases on magnetic discs or tapes; creation of full text databases; searching and display requirements for full text searching and software. Concludes that bibliographic information services without full text support solve only half of the retrieval problems

0.005911077 = product of:
  0.03251092 = sum of:
    0.019591875 = weight(_text_:of in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019591875 = score(doc=1813,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 1813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=1813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 1813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1813)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

In Jan 1997 AOL annouced its acquisition of Personal Library Software, a leading developer of information indexing and search technologies, which are at the core of online a CD-ROM products from major providers such as Dow Jones and Knight Ridder. AOL is the world's leading Internet online service. Quotes the company heads concerning the advantages of the deal for searchers but reports that no specific details of its terms have been released. Outlines the history of the companies focusing on the role of Matthew Koll founder of Personal Library Software and now joining AOL and the reactions of information professionals

0.005911077 = product of:
  0.03251092 = sum of:
    0.019591875 = weight(_text_:of in 513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019591875 = score(doc=513,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 513, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=513)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=513)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Since most popular commercialized systems for full text retrieval are designed with full text scaning and Boolean logic query mode, these systems use an oversimplified relationship between the indexing form and the content of document. Reports the use of Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to develop a Cluster Indexing Model (CIM) based on a Vector Space Model (VSM) in orer to explore the index theory of cluster indexing for chinese full text documents. From a series of experiments, it was found that the indexing performance of CIM is better than traditional VSM, and has almost equivalent effectiveness of the authority control of index terms

Source

Bulletin of library and information science. 1998, no.24, S.44-68

0.0057476624 = product of:
  0.031612143 = sum of:
    0.0092357 = weight(_text_:of in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0092357 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
    0.022376444 = weight(_text_:on in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022376444 = score(doc=1682,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

At Rotterdam Ports Authority in the Netherlands the Habour information database includes a press cuttings service and various online databases. To enable research staff to have direct access to information the POINT (Point Information Net) was begun in 1993. Using Verity software POINT provides simultaneously full text searching on a range of databases. The software uses current Web indexing technqiues to overcome the problems of excessive recall and low precision. A key element is the system's ability to recognise word combinations

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Effective searching on full texts: 1. full-text-retrieval on the Harbour information database

0.005718971 = product of:
  0.03145434 = sum of:
    0.015471167 = weight(_text_:of in 4213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015471167 = score(doc=4213,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 4213, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4213)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 4213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=4213,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 4213, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4213)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Footnote

Novice end users were given 2 hours of training in searching a full-text magazine database (Magazine ASAP(TM)) on DIALOG. Subjects searched during 3 to 4 sessions in the presence of a trained monitor who prompted them to think aloud throughout the sessions. qualitative analysis of the transcripts and transaction logs yielded empirical information on user variables (purpose, motivation, satisfaction), uses of the database, move types, and every question users asked during the searches. The spontaneous, naturalistic questions were categorized according to affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor speech acts. Results show that most of the searches were performed for the self and were work related. The most common use of the database was to retrieve full-text articles online and to download and print them out rather than read them on screen. The majority of searches were judged satisfactory. Innovative uses included browsing for background information and obtaining contextualized sentences for language teaching. Searchers made twice as many moves to limit sets as moves to expand sets. Affective questions outnumbered cognitive and sensorimotor questions by two to one. This preponderance of affective micro-information needs during searching might be addressed by new system functions

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.276-286