Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Volltextretrieval"
  1. Voorbij, H.: Title keywords and subject descriptors : a comparison of subject search entries of books in the humanities and social sciences (1998) 0.01
    0.014386819 = product of:
      0.057547275 = sum of:
        0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057547275 = score(doc=4721,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  2. Laegreid, J.A.: SIFT: a Norwegian information retrieval system (1993) 0.01
    0.006276408 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = product of:
          0.050211266 = sum of:
            0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 7701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050211266 = score(doc=7701,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7701, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7701)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    23. 1.1999 19:22:09
  3. Reinisch, F.: Wer suchet - der findet? : oder Die Überwindung der sprachlichen Grenzen bei der Suche in Volltextdatenbanken (2000) 0.01
    0.006276408 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = product of:
          0.050211266 = sum of:
            0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050211266 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2000 17:48:06
  4. Zillmann, H.: OSIRIS und eLib : Information Retrieval und Search Engines in Full-text Databases (2001) 0.01
    0.006276408 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = product of:
          0.050211266 = sum of:
            0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050211266 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    14. 6.2001 12:22:31
  5. Dambeck, H.; Engler, T.: Gesucht und gefunden : Neun Volltext-Suchprogramme für den Desktop (2002) 0.01
    0.006276408 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = product of:
          0.050211266 = sum of:
            0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050211266 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1169, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1169)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    c't. 2002, H.22, S.190-197
  6. Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.: Why full-text misses some relevant documents : an analysis of documents not retrieved by CCML or MEDIS (1989) 0.00
    0.004707306 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = product of:
          0.03765845 = sum of:
            0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03765845 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    9. 1.1996 10:22:31