Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 367, 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=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study of subject access to UK academic library catalogues was based on a questionnaires end out during Summer 1991. 86 out of a possible 110 questionnaires were returned. All universities and polytechniques now have OPACs which are progressing well towards comprehensive bibliographical coverage of their libraries' stocks. The MARC format is now widely used. Subject access strategies are usually based on either Library of Congress Subject Headings or inhouse indexing systems but almost half the OPACs studies have no separate subject searching option based on subject indexing is expensive and future subject indexing strategies are best based on pre-existing controlled vocabularies. Strategies authority control is essential. A limited range of software strategies is recommended including the need to limit search results

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 4885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=4885,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4885, 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=4885)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In einem Benutzertest, der im Rahmen der Projektes GIRT stattfand, wurde die Leistungsfähigkeit zweier Retrievalsprachen für die Datenbankrecherche überprüft. Die Ergebnisse werden in diesem Bericht dargestellt: Das System FULCRUM beruht auf automatischer Indexierung und liefert ein nach statistischer Relevanz sortiertes Suchergebnis. Die Standardfreitextsuche des Systems MESSENGER wurde um die intellektuell vom IZ vergebenen Deskriptoren ergänzt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass in FULCRUM das Boole'sche Exakt-Match-Retrieval dem Verktos-Space-Modell (Best-Match-Verfahren) von den Versuchspersonen vorgezogen wurde. Die in MESSENGER realisierte Mischform aus intellektueller und automatischer Indexierung erwies sich gegenüber dem quantitativ-statistischen Ansatz beim Recall als überlegen

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=59,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 59, 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=59)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many Semantic Web applications provide access to their resources through text-based search queries, using explicit semantics to improve the search results. This paper provides an analysis of the current state of the art in semantic search, based on 35 existing systems. We identify different types of semantic search features that are used during query construction, the core search process, the presentation of the search results and user feedback on query and results. For each of these, we consider the functionality that the system provides and how this is made available through the user interface.