-
Borko, H.: Determining user requirements for an information storage and retrieval system : a systems approach (1962)
0.20
0.19784787 = product of:
0.39569575 = sum of:
0.22507617 = weight(_text_:storage in 4980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.22507617 = score(doc=4980,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.9632287 = fieldWeight in 4980, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4980)
0.06936607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06936607 = score(doc=4980,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 4980, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4980)
0.10125351 = weight(_text_:systems in 4980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10125351 = score(doc=4980,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13179013 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.76829356 = fieldWeight in 4980, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4980)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Source
- Information systems workshop
-
Goffman, W.; Newill, V.A.: ¬A methodology for test and evaluation of information retrieval systems (1966/67)
0.20
0.19738582 = product of:
0.39477164 = sum of:
0.22507617 = weight(_text_:storage in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.22507617 = score(doc=1310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.9632287 = fieldWeight in 1310, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1310)
0.098098435 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098098435 = score(doc=1310,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.75622874 = fieldWeight in 1310, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1310)
0.07159704 = weight(_text_:systems in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07159704 = score(doc=1310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179013 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 1310, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1310)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 3(1966/67), S.19-26
-
Armitage, J.E.; Lynch, M.F.: Some structural characteristics of articulated subject indexes (1968)
0.10
0.098147415 = product of:
0.29444224 = sum of:
0.22507617 = weight(_text_:storage in 2303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.22507617 = score(doc=2303,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.9632287 = fieldWeight in 2303, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2303)
0.06936607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06936607 = score(doc=2303,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 2303, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2303)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 4(1968) no.2, S.101-111
-
International Symposium on Relational Factors in Classification, Univ. of Maryland, 8.-11.6.1966. Proceedings (1967)
0.10
0.095244914 = product of:
0.19048983 = sum of:
0.09847082 = weight(_text_:storage in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09847082 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.42141256 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
0.06069531 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06069531 = score(doc=1309,freq=8.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
0.031323705 = weight(_text_:systems in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031323705 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179013 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: PERREAULT, J.M. On the articulation of surrogates: an attempt at an epistemological foundation; RICHMOND, P.A.: Critique; CECCATO, S.: Concepts for a new systematics; BREGZIS, R., D.E. WALKER: Critique; SOERGEL, D.: Some remarks on information languages, their analysis and comparison; ATHERTON, P., FAIRTHORNE, R.A.: Critique; FARRADANE, J.: Concept organization for information retrieval; ATHERTON, P., H. BORKO: Critique; LÉVY, F.: On the relative nature of relational factors in classifications; RICHMOND, P.A., H. BORKO: Critique; NEWMAN, S.M.: An operative information retrieval system based on relational factors; LANCASTER, F.W., D.E. WALKER: Critique; PAGèS, R.: Relational aspects of conceptualization in message analysis; WILLIAMS, T.M., R. BREGZIS: Critique; DALE, A.G.: Indexing and classification for interactive retrieval systems; WILLIAMS, T.M., F.W. LANCASTER: Critique; GROLIER, E. de: Synoptic critique; RANGANATHAN, S.R.: Hidden roots of classification
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 3(1967), no.4
-
Farradane, J.: Concept organization for information retrieval (1967)
0.09
0.09425926 = product of:
0.2827778 = sum of:
0.19694164 = weight(_text_:storage in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19694164 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.8428251 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
0.08583613 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08583613 = score(doc=35,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 3(1967) S.297-314
-
Lesk, M.E.; Salton, G.: Relevance assements and retrieval system evaluation (1969)
0.09
0.0911791 = product of:
0.1823582 = sum of:
0.09847082 = weight(_text_:storage in 4151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09847082 = score(doc=4151,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.42141256 = fieldWeight in 4151, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4151)
0.052563682 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052563682 = score(doc=4151,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 4151, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4151)
0.031323705 = weight(_text_:systems in 4151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031323705 = score(doc=4151,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179013 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4151, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4151)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Abstract
- Two widerly used criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems are, respectively, the recall and the precision. Since the determiniation of these measures is dependent on a distinction between documents which are relevant to a given query and documents which are not relevant to that query, it has sometimes been claimed that an accurate, generally valid evaluation cannot be based on recall and precision measure. A study was made to determine the effect of variations in relevance assesments do not produce significant variations in average recall and precision. It thus appears that properly computed recall and precision data may represent effectiveness indicators which are gemerally valid for many distinct user classes.
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 4(1969), S.343-359
-
Good, I.J.: ¬The decision-theory approach to the evaluation of information-retrieval systems (1967)
0.08
0.07958028 = product of:
0.15916055 = sum of:
0.08440357 = weight(_text_:storage in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08440357 = score(doc=4154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.36121076 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
0.036786914 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036786914 = score(doc=4154,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
0.037970066 = weight(_text_:systems in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037970066 = score(doc=4154,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13179013 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Abstract
- It is argued that the evaluation of information-retrieval systems should ultimately be based on the principle of rationality, the maximization of expected utility. In full generality this would involve an estimation of both the cost and value of a system, but the emphasis in this paper is on the problem of value, in terms of which the effiency of the system could be defined. One implication of the discussion is that it is not legitimate to superimpose the 2x2 contingency tables that refer to select/discarded and relevant/irrelevant, correspondending to each request,but it might be all right to superimpose them after applying a monotonic function to the entries. In particular, it is questionable whether a useful statistic is the ratio of the total number of relevant selected documents to the total number of relevant ones, over a sample of requests.
- Source
- Information storage review. 3(1967), S.31-34
-
Goffman, W.: On relevance as a measure (1964)
0.07
0.07361057 = product of:
0.22083169 = sum of:
0.16880713 = weight(_text_:storage in 5514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16880713 = score(doc=5514,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.7224215 = fieldWeight in 5514, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5514)
0.05202455 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05202455 = score(doc=5514,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5514, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5514)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 2(1964), S.201-203
-
Soergel, D.: Mathematical analysis of documentation systems : an attempt to a theory of classification and search request formulation (1967)
0.07
0.068032086 = product of:
0.13606417 = sum of:
0.070336305 = weight(_text_:storage in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070336305 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
0.043353792 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043353792 = score(doc=5449,freq=8.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
0.022374075 = weight(_text_:systems in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022374075 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179013 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Abstract
- As an attempt to make a general structural theory of information retrieval, a documentation system (DS) is defined as a formal system consisting of (a) a set o of objects (documents); (b) a set A++ of elementary attributes (key-words), from which further attributes may be constructed: A++ generates A; (c) a set of axioms of the form X++(x)=m (m¯M, M a set of constant connecting attributes with objects: from the axioms further theorems (=true statements) may be constructed. By use of the theorems, different mappings O -> P(o) (P(o) set of all subsets of o) (search question -> set of documents retrieved) are defined. The type of a DS depends on two basic decisions: (1) choice of the rules for the construction of attributes and theorems, e.g., logical product in coordinate indexing; links. (2) choice of M; M may consist of the two constants 'applicable' and 'not applicable', or some positive integers, ...; Further practical decisions: A++ hierarchical or not; kind of mapping; introduction of roles (=further attributes). The most simple case - ordinary two-valued Coordinate Indexing - is discusssed in detail; o is a free distributive (but not Boolean) lattice, the homographic image a ring of subsets of o; instead of negation which is not useful, a useful retrieval operation 'praeternagation' is introduced. Furthermore these are discussed: a generalized definition of superimposed coding, some functions for the distance of objects or attributes; optimization and automatic derivation of classifications. The model takes into account term-term relations and document-document relations. It may serve as a structural framework in terms of which the functional problems of retrieval theory may be expressed more clearly
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 3(1967), S.129-173
-
Goffman, W.: ¬A searching procedure for information retrieval (1964)
0.06
0.057536956 = product of:
0.17261086 = sum of:
0.112538084 = weight(_text_:storage in 5281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.112538084 = score(doc=5281,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.48161435 = fieldWeight in 5281, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5281)
0.06007278 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06007278 = score(doc=5281,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 5281, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5281)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- A search procedure for an information retrieval system is developed whereby the answer to a question is obtained by maximizing an evaluation function of the system's output in terms of the probility of relevance. Necessary and sufficient conditions are given for a set to be an answer to a query. A partition of the file is made in such way that all documents belonging to the answer are members of the same class. Hence the answer can be generated by one relevant document. In this manner a search of the total file is avoided
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 2(1964), S.73-78
-
Goffman, W.: ¬An indirect method of information retrieval (1968)
0.05
0.050344836 = product of:
0.1510345 = sum of:
0.09847082 = weight(_text_:storage in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09847082 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23366846 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.42141256 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
0.052563682 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052563682 = score(doc=72,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12972058 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.04288404 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The information retrieval process, treated strictly as a matching procedure, has the defects that the whole file must be probed for each query, and that it overlooks the facts that the relevance of the information from one document depends upon what is already known about the subject, and in turn affects the relevance of other documents subsequently examined. A mathematical model of a search technique in which the defects of the direct method are taken into account is demonstrated by an experiment in which a given paper is treated as an enquiry and the references cited in the paper are treated as relevant answers. The results in two tests show much better results than those achieved by the direct method. No spurious material was retrieved by either method
- Source
- Information storage and retrieval. 4(1968), S.361-373
