Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

Furner, J.: IR on the Web : an overview (1996) 0.02

0.021110734 = product of:
  0.042221468 = sum of:
    0.042221468 = product of:
      0.084442936 = sum of:
        0.084442936 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084442936 = score(doc=395,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract: Gives an overview of information retrieval on the WWW. Discusses the characteristics of the digital library and the WWW. Explains information retrieval problems in the context of the WWW, and outlines the responses of developers of information retrieval systems to this problem. Indicates how WWW search services might be improved through the further exploration of ideas developed in the field of library science and artificial intelligence
Footnote: Contribution to an issue devoted to information retrieval on the WWW

Furner, J.: On Recommending (2002) 0.01
```
0.013711825 = product of:
  0.02742365 = sum of:
    0.02742365 = product of:
      0.0548473 = sum of:
        0.0548473 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0548473 = score(doc=5243,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 5243, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

By "recommending'' Furner refers to collaborative filtering where multiple user rankings of items are used to create a single new ranking for a user, or to a system itself generating rankings of items for its users. This would include document retrieval systems as a subset recommending systems in the second instance, but in the first would make document retrieval system and recommending system synonyms. Information seeking actions are classified either as evaluative (determining the worth of an item), recommending (expressing perceived worth), or informative (examining the content of an item). The task of the information retrieval system is to be to predict the particular ordering that the user would specify in a given context, given complete knowledge of the collection. Citations may be considered as the result of evaluative and recommending decisions by the author, and assigned index terms may be considered as the same sort of decisions by the indexer. The selection of relevant documents by a searcher from a list also involves evaluative and recommending decisions. This suggests that searchers should have the opportunity to bring multiple ranking techniques to bear.
Ellis, D.; Furner, J.; Willett, P.: On the creation of hypertext links in full-text documents : measurement of retrieval effectiveness (1996) 0.01
```
0.0114265205 = product of:
  0.022853041 = sum of:
    0.022853041 = product of:
      0.045706082 = sum of:
        0.045706082 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045706082 = score(doc=4214,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
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

Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.01

0.010609582 = product of:
  0.021219164 = sum of:
    0.021219164 = product of:
      0.04243833 = sum of:
        0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04243833 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 11. 9.2004 17:32:22

Furner, J.: Folksonomies (2009) 0.01

0.010555367 = product of:
  0.021110734 = sum of:
    0.021110734 = product of:
      0.042221468 = sum of:
        0.042221468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042221468 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract: Folksonomies are indexing languages that emerge from the distributed resource-description activity of multiple agents who make use of online tagging services to assign tags (i.e., category labels) to the resources in collections. Although individuals' motivations for engaging in tagging activity vary widely, folksonomy-based retrieval systems can be evaluated by measuring the degree to which taggers and searchers agree on tag-resource pairings.

Leazer, G.H.; Furner, J.: Topological indices of textual identity networks (1999) 0.01
```
0.009329714 = product of:
  0.018659428 = sum of:
    0.018659428 = product of:
      0.037318856 = sum of:
        0.037318856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037318856 = score(doc=6683,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 6683, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

A textual identity network is a set of documents that share common semantic or linguistic content. For example, the textual identity network of Ben-Hur includes the progenitor work, translations, screen play adaptations, and film performances. A network might also include successively numbered editions, simultaneous editions published in various countries, and other derivative forms. This network expresses how a work evolves over time and through a variety of media. Evolving textual identity can be expressed as a set of relationships among the members of the network. Several taxonomies of intertextual associations have been developed for use in information retrieval systems. The individual documents (books, films, computer files, etc.) contained in a textual identity network can be associated through a number of pairwise relationships, and the network can be studied as a system. This basic pattern makes textual networks ideal candidates for study using network analysis techniques, allowing summary measures that characterize networks. Topological indices provide high-level measures of network structure. This paper concludes on a discussion of how topological indices might be used in document retrieval
Ellis, D.; Ford, N.; Furner, J.: In search of the unknown user : indexing, hypertext and the World Wide Web (1998) 0.01
```
0.009235946 = product of:
  0.018471893 = sum of:
    0.018471893 = product of:
      0.036943786 = sum of:
        0.036943786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036943786 = score(doc=4714,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4714, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4714)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

For the purposes of this article, the indexing of information is interpreted as the pre-processing of information in order to enable its retrieval. The definition thus spans a dimension extending from classification-based approaches (pre-co-ordinate) to keyword searching (post-co-ordinate). In the first section we clarify our use of terminology, by briefly describing a framework for modelling IR systems in terms of sets of objects, relationships and functions. In the following 3 sections, we discuss the application of indexing functions to document collections of 3 specific types: (1) 'conventional' text databases; (2) hypertext databases; and (3) the World Wide Web, globally distributed across the Internet

Srinivasan, R.; Boast, R.; Becvar, K.M.; Furner, J.: Blobgects : digital museum catalogs and diverse user communities (2009) 0.01

0.008841318 = product of:
  0.017682636 = sum of:
    0.017682636 = product of:
      0.035365272 = sum of:
        0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035365272 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 22. 3.2009 18:52:32

Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.01
```
0.007916525 = product of:
  0.01583305 = sum of:
    0.01583305 = product of:
      0.0316661 = sum of:
        0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316661 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Although user tagging of library resources shows substantial promise as a means of improving the quality of users' access to those resources, several important questions about the level and nature of the warrant for basing retrieval tools on user tagging are yet to receive full consideration by library practitioners and researchers. Among these is the simple evaluative question: What, specifically, are the factors that determine whether or not user-tagging services will be successful? If success is to be defined in terms of the effectiveness with which systems perform the particular functions expected of them (rather than simply in terms of popularity), an understanding is needed both of the multifunctional nature of tagging tools, and of the complex nature of users' mental models of that multifunctionality. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for the evaluation of systems that integrate user tagging with more traditional methods of library resource description.
Furner, J.: Information science Is neither (2015) 0.01
```
0.007916525 = product of:
  0.01583305 = sum of:
    0.01583305 = product of:
      0.0316661 = sum of:
        0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316661 = score(doc=5527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5527, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Information science is not a science, nor is it primarily about information. In this paper, an argument is developed in support of the latter claim. A working definition of information is proposed, and doubts are raised about the extent to which each of five core subfields of information science/studies (information behavior, information retrieval, infometrics, information organization, and information ethics) has to do with information as defined. Several alternative candidates for the primary phenomenon of interest shared by those working in all five subfields are considered: these include data studies; knowledge studies; metadata studies; representation studies; relevance studies; and (as a branch of cultural studies) collection, preservation, and access studies. A prime candidate is identified, and some implications of such a reading for the application of philosophical approaches to information science/studies are highlighted.

Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Types

Themes