Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03128866 = product of:
  0.06257732 = sum of:
    0.06257732 = sum of:
      0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027226217 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1182, 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=1182)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1182, 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=1182)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contemporary information systems, both the private and the commercially available ones, have often been blamed for their low effectiveness in terms of precision and recall, especially when they have reached considerable size with respect to file volume and use frequency (see, for example, Belkin, 1980; Blair, 1996, p.19; Desai, 1997; Drabenstott, 1996; Knorz, 1998). Saracevic (1989), after having reviewed the contemporary design of online subject access, calls "for radically different design principles and implementation" (p. 107). Van Rijsbergen (1990) writes: "The keywords approach with statistical techniques has reached its theoretical limit and further attempts for improvement are considered a waste of time" (p. 111). Lancaster (1992) deplores that very little really significant literature an subject indexing has been published in the last thirty or so years. In her preface to the Proceedings of the Sixth International Study Conference an Classification Research in 1997, Mcllwaine (1997) writes, "many were surprised to find that the problems with which they wrestle today are not greatly different from those that have been occupying the minds of specialists in the field for over a generation, and probably a great deal longer" (p. v).

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.021780973 = product of:
  0.043561947 = sum of:
    0.043561947 = product of:
      0.08712389 = sum of:
        0.08712389 = weight(_text_:systems in 4772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08712389 = score(doc=4772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 4772, 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=4772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 7739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=7739,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 7739, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The low effectiveness of most current information systems has often been pointed out and deplored. A number of misconceptions and experiments under unrealistic conditions have contributed to the faulty design and evaluation of information systems. The postulate of representational predictibility can help to clarify some of the still pending issues as there are the strenghts and limitations of uncontrolled natural language text in retrieval systems, factors for their evaluation, the reliability, consistency, and exhaustivity of indexing, the postulated 'inverse precision-recall relationship', and the usefulness of syntactical evices. The performance of information systems can be imporved if representational predictibility is aimed at in their design and operational use

0.01767555 = product of:
  0.0353511 = sum of:
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 1085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707022 = score(doc=1085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 8.2022 19:22:57

0.01633573 = product of:
  0.03267146 = sum of:
    0.03267146 = product of:
      0.06534292 = sum of:
        0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 1008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534292 = score(doc=1008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 1008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 4169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=4169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 4169, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

¬The history and heritage of scientific and technological information systems: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference. Ed. by W. Boyd Rayward, Mary Ellen Bowden

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 4115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=4115,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 4115, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The comparative evaluation of different mechanized information systems continues to constitute a controversial topic in the literature. Diametrically differemt opinions, seemingly corroborated through empirical evidence, have been presented since the time of the Cranfield experiments. For literally anything an empirical 'proof' can be submitted provided that suitable examples are selected and methods are chosen. substantial advance in Library and Information Science requires abandoning empiricism. Budd's 'hermeneutic phenomenoloy' seems to constitute a promising substitute

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 2222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=2222,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 2222, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2222)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Both classification systems and thesauri have their specific strengths and weaknesses. Through properly combining both approaches one can eliminate the latter and largely preserve the strenghts. 'Classauri' which originate in this well-known way are most effective if they are constructed and applied during computer-aided indexing. A special variety of classaurus is described which is characterized by the employment of simple bur highly effective conceptual and technical devices and by the renunciation of attempts to generate the wording of index entries algorithmically

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 8756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=8756,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 8756, 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=8756)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält folgende Kapitel: Information and information systems; Information system survival power; Theoretical considerations on information storage and retrieval; Indexing (representation of the essence of documents; extractive, assignment, consistent indexing, indexing and abstracting, book indexing, index language vocabulary, syntax, concept analysis, evaluation of indexing quality); Technology of information supply; Glossary of terms used; Systematic and 'basic index'

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 8278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=8278,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 8278, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The tight adherence to dogmas, created and advocated by authorities and disseminated through hearsay, constitutes an impediment to the progress badly needed in view of the low effectiveness of the vast majority of our bibliographic information systems. The Italian mathematician and physicist Galileo has become famous not only for his discoveries but also for his being exposed to the rejective and even hostile attitude on the part of his contemporaries when he contradicted several dogmas prevailing at that time. This obstructive attitude can be traced throughout the centuries and manifests itself in the field of modern information science, too. An example is the allegedly necessary, inevitable precision/recall relationship, as most recently postulated again by Lancaster (1994). It is believed to be confirmed by emprical evidence, with other empirical evidence to the contrary being neglected. This case even constitutes an example of the suppression of truth in the interest of upholding a dogma

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=3641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The second Cranfield experiment (Cranfield II) in the mid-1960s challenged assumptions held by librarians for nearly a century, namely, that the objective of providing subject access was to bring together all materials an a given topic and that the achieving of this objective required vocabulary control in the form of an index language. The results of Cranfield II were replicated by other retrieval experiments quick to follow its lead and increasing support was given to the opinion that natural language information systems could perform at least as effectively, and certainly more economically, than those employing index languages. When the results of empirical research dramatically counter conventional wisdom, an obvious course is to question the validity of the research and, in the case of retrieval experiments, this eventually happened. Retrieval experiments were criticized for their artificiality, their unrepresentative sampies, and their problematic definitions-particularly the definition of relevance. In the minds of some, at least, the relative merits of natural languages vs. indexing languages continued to be an unresolved issue. As with many eitherlor options, a seemingly safe course to follow is to opt for "both," and indeed there seems to be an increasing amount of counsel advising a combination of natural language and index language search capabilities. One strong voice offering such counsel is that of Robert Fugmann, a chemist by training, a theoretician by predilection, and, currently, a practicing information scientist at Hoechst AG, Frankfurt/Main. This selection from his writings sheds light an the capabilities and limitations of both kinds of indexing. Its special significance lies in the fact that its arguments are based not an empirical but an rational grounds. Fugmann's major argument starts from the observation that in natural language there are essentially two different kinds of concepts: 1) individual concepts, repre sented by names of individual things (e.g., the name of the town Augsburg), and 2) general concepts represented by names of classes of things (e.g., pesticides). Individual concepts can be represented in language simply and succinctly, often by a single string of alphanumeric characters; general concepts, an the other hand, can be expressed in a multiplicity of ways. The word pesticides refers to the concept of pesticides, but also referring to this concept are numerous circumlocutions, such as "Substance X was effective against pests." Because natural language is capable of infinite variety, we cannot predict a priori the manifold ways a general concept, like pesticides, will be represented by any given author. It is this lack of predictability that limits natural language retrieval and causes poor precision and recall. Thus, the essential and defining characteristic of an index language ls that it is a tool for representational predictability.