Search (382 results, page 1 of 20)

0.026313413 = product of:
  0.078940235 = sum of:
    0.004394186 = weight(_text_:in in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004394186 = score(doc=3868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
    0.07454605 = weight(_text_:education in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07454605 = score(doc=3868,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.36806607 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This paper reports on an analysis of the loss levels that would result if a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI), were missing the subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by its professional indexers, employing the methodology developed by Gross and Taylor (2005), and later by Gross et al. (2015). The results indicate that AEI users would lose a similar proportion of hits per query to that experienced by library catalog users: on average, 27% of the resources found by a sample of keyword queries on the AEI database would not have been found without the subject indexing, based on the Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors (ATED). The paper also discusses the methodological limitations of these studies, pointing out that real-life users might still find some of the resources missed by a particular query through follow-up searches, while additional resources might also be found through iterative searching on the subject vocabulary. The paper goes on to describe a new research design, based on a before - and - after experiment, which addresses some of these limitations. It is argued that this alternative design will provide a more realistic picture of the value that professionally assigned subject indexing and controlled subject vocabularies can add to literature searching of a more scholarly and thorough kind.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.025015084 = product of:
  0.07504525 = sum of:
    0.01179084 = weight(_text_:in in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01179084 = score(doc=4598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
    0.06325441 = weight(_text_:education in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06325441 = score(doc=4598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.3123144 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Searching for information on the WWW basically comes down to locating an appropriate Web site and to retrieving relevant information from that site. This study examined the effect of a user's WWW experience on both phases of the search process. 35 students from 2 schools for Dutch pre-university education were observed while performing 3 search tasks. The results indicate that subjects with WWW-experience are more proficient in locating Web sites than are novice WWW-users. The observed differences were ascribed to the experts' superior skills in operating Web search engines. However, on tasks that required subjects to locate information on specific Web sites, the performance of experienced and novice users was equivalent - a result that is in line with hypertext research. Based on these findings, implications for training and supporting students in searching for information on the WWW are identified. Finally, the role of the subjects' level of domain expertise is discussed and directions for future research are proposed

0.020645127 = product of:
  0.061935376 = sum of:
    0.009227791 = weight(_text_:in in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227791 = score(doc=5082,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.15780272 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.052707586 = weight(_text_:great in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052707586 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.21774168 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Text retrieval technology targets a problem that is all too familiar: finding relevant information in large stores of electronic documents. The problem is an old one, with the first research conference devoted to the subject held in 1958 [11]. Since then the problem has continued to grow as more information is created in electronic form and more people gain electronic access. The advent of the World Wide Web, where anyone can publish so everyone must search, is a graphic illustration of the need for effective retrieval technology. The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a workshop series designed to build the infrastructure necessary for the large-scale evaluation of text retrieval technology, thereby accelerating its transfer into the commercial sector. The series is sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Defense. At the time of this writing, there have been twelve TREC workshops and preparations for the thirteenth workshop are under way. Participants in the workshops have been drawn from the academic, commercial, and government sectors, and have included representatives from more than twenty different countries. These collective efforts have accomplished a great deal: a variety of large test collections have been built for both traditional ad hoc retrieval and related tasks such as cross-language retrieval, speech retrieval, and question answering; retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled; and many commercial retrieval systems now contain technology first developed in TREC.
This book chronicles the evolution of retrieval systems over the course of TREC. To be sure, there has already been a wealth of information written about TREC. Each conference has produced a proceedings containing general overviews of the various tasks, papers written by the individual participants, and evaluation results.1 Reports on expanded versions of TREC experiments frequently appear in the wider information retrieval literature. There also have been special issues of journals devoted to particular TRECs [3; 13] and particular TREC tasks [6; 4]. No single volume could hope to be a comprehensive record of all TREC-related research. Instead, this book looks to distill the overabundance of detail into a manageable whole that summarizes the main lessons learned from TREC. The book consists of three main parts. The first part contains introductory and descriptive chapters on TREC's history, the major products of TREC (the test collections), and the retrieval evaluation methodology. Part II includes chapters describing the major TREC ''tracks,'' evaluations of special subtopics such as cross-language retrieval and question answering. Part III contains contributions from research groups that have participated in TREC. The epilogue to the book is written by Karen Sparck Jones, who reflects on the impact TREC has had on the information retrieval field. The structure of this introductory chapter is similar to that of the book as a whole. The chapter begins with a short history of TREC; expanded descriptions of specific aspects of the history are included in subsequent chapters to make those chapters self-contained. Section 1.2 describes TREC's track structure, which has been responsible for the growth of TREC and allows TREC to adapt to changing needs. The final section lists both the major accomplishments of TREC and some remaining challenges.

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.01964211 = product of:
  0.05892633 = sum of:
    0.006214318 = weight(_text_:in in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006214318 = score(doc=4300,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
    0.052712012 = weight(_text_:education in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052712012 = score(doc=4300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2025344 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This article reports on an investigation of the search value that subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by professional indexers add to a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI). First, a similar methodology to that developed by Gross et al. (2015) was applied, with keyword searches representing a range of educational topics run on the AEI database with and without its subject indexing. The results indicated that AEI users would also lose, on average, about a quarter of hits per query. Second, an alternative research design was applied in which an experienced literature searcher was asked to find resources on a set of educational topics on an AEI database stripped of its subject indexing and then asked to search for additional resources on the same topics after the subject indexing had been reinserted. In this study, the proportion of additional resources that would have been lost had it not been for the subject indexing was again found to be about a quarter of the total resources found for each topic, on average.

0.017691724 = product of:
  0.053075172 = sum of:
    0.012303721 = weight(_text_:in in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012303721 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
    0.04077145 = product of:
      0.0815429 = sum of:
        0.0815429 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0815429 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:43:54

0.017569195 = product of:
  0.10541517 = sum of:
    0.10541517 = weight(_text_:great in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10541517 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The majority of information retrieval experiments are evaluated by measures such as average precision and average recall. Fundamental decisions about the superiority of one retrieval technique over another are made solely on the bases of these measures. We claim that average performance figures need to be validated with a careful statistical analysis and that there is a great deal of additional information that can be uncovered by looking closely at the results of individual queries. This article is a case study of stemming algorithms which describes a number of novel approaches to evaluation and demonstrates their value

0.016283765 = product of:
  0.048851296 = sum of:
    0.011203022 = weight(_text_:in in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011203022 = score(doc=636,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.19158077 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.037648275 = weight(_text_:great in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037648275 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24206476 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.15552977 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), a yearly workshop hosted by the US government's National Institute of Standards and Technology, provides the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. With the goal of accelerating research in this area, TREC created the first large test collections of full-text documents and standardized retrieval evaluation. The impact has been significant; since TREC's beginning in 1992, retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled. TREC has built a variety of large test collections, including collections for such specialized retrieval tasks as cross-language retrieval and retrieval of speech. Moreover, TREC has accelerated the transfer of research ideas into commercial systems, as demonstrated in the number of retrieval techniques developed in TREC that are now used in Web search engines. This book provides a comprehensive review of TREC research, summarizing the variety of TREC results, documenting the best practices in experimental information retrieval, and suggesting areas for further research. The first part of the book describes TREC's history, test collections, and retrieval methodology. Next, the book provides "track" reports -- describing the evaluations of specific tasks, including routing and filtering, interactive retrieval, and retrieving noisy text. The final part of the book offers perspectives on TREC from such participants as Microsoft Research, University of Massachusetts, Cornell University, University of Waterloo, City University of New York, and IBM. The book will be of interest to researchers in information retrieval and related technologies, including natural language processing.

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: 1. The Text REtrieval Conference - Ellen M. Voorhees and Donna K. Harman 2. The TREC Test Collections - Donna K. Harman 3. Retrieval System Evaluation - Chris Buckley and Ellen M. Voorhees 4. The TREC Ad Hoc Experiments - Donna K. Harman 5. Routing and Filtering - Stephen Robertson and Jamie Callan 6. The TREC Interactive Tracks: Putting the User into Search - Susan T. Dumais and Nicholas J. Belkin 7. Beyond English - Donna K. Harman 8. Retrieving Noisy Text - Ellen M. Voorhees and John S. Garofolo 9.The Very Large Collection and Web Tracks - David Hawking and Nick Craswell 10. Question Answering in TREC - Ellen M. Voorhees 11. The University of Massachusetts and a Dozen TRECs - James Allan, W. Bruce Croft and Jamie Callan 12. How Okapi Came to TREC - Stephen Robertson 13. The SMART Project at TREC - Chris Buckley 14. Ten Years of Ad Hoc Retrieval at TREC Using PIRCS - Kui-Lam Kwok 15. MultiText Experiments for TREC - Gordon V. Cormack, Charles L. A. Clarke, Christopher R. Palmer and Thomas R. Lynam 16. A Language-Modeling Approach to TREC - Djoerd Hiemstra and Wessel Kraaij 17. BM Research Activities at TREC - Eric W. Brown, David Carmel, Martin Franz, Abraham Ittycheriah, Tapas Kanungo, Yoelle Maarek, J. Scott McCarley, Robert L. Mack, John M. Prager, John R. Smith, Aya Soffer, Jason Y. Zien and Alan D. Marwick Epilogue: Metareflections on TREC - Karen Sparck Jones

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.6, S.910-911 (J.L. Vicedo u. J. Gomez): "The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a yearly workshop hosted by the U.S. government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that fosters and supports research in information retrieval as well as speeding the transfer of technology between research labs and industry. Since 1992, TREC has provided the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluations of different text retrieval methodologies. TREC impact has been very important and its success has been mainly supported by its continuous adaptation to the emerging information retrieval needs. Not in vain, TREC has built evaluation benchmarks for more than 20 different retrieval problems such as Web retrieval, speech retrieval, or question-answering. The large and intense trajectory of annual TREC conferences has resulted in an immense bulk of documents reflecting the different eval uation and research efforts developed. This situation makes it difficult sometimes to observe clearly how research in information retrieval (IR) has evolved over the course of TREC. TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval succeeds in organizing and condensing all this research into a manageable volume that describes TREC history and summarizes the main lessons learned. The book is organized into three parts. The first part is devoted to the description of TREC's origin and history, the test collections, and the evaluation methodology developed. The second part describes a selection of the major evaluation exercises (tracks), and the third part contains contributions from research groups that had a large and remarkable participation in TREC. Finally, Karen Spark Jones, one of the main promoters of research in IR, closes the book with an epilogue that analyzes the impact of TREC on this research field.
... TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval is a reliable and comprehensive review of the TREC program and has been adopted by NIST as the official history of TREC (see http://trec.nist.gov). We were favorably surprised by the book. Well structured and written, chapters are self-contained and the existence of references to specialized and more detailed publications is continuous, which makes it easier to expand into the different aspects analyzed in the text. This book succeeds in compiling TREC evolution from its inception in 1992 to 2003 in an adequate and manageable volume. Thanks to the impressive effort performed by the authors and their experience in the field, it can satiate the interests of a great variety of readers. While expert researchers in the IR field and IR-related industrial companies can use it as a reference manual, it seems especially useful for students and non-expert readers willing to approach this research area. Like NIST, we would recommend this reading to anyone who may be interested in textual information retrieval."

0.013850367 = product of:
  0.0415511 = sum of:
    0.012428636 = weight(_text_:in in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012428636 = score(doc=2417,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.029122464 = product of:
      0.05824493 = sum of:
        0.05824493 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05824493 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, 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=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Pages

S.22-25

Source

Productivity in the information age : proceedings of the 46th ASIS annual meeting, 1983. Ed.: Raymond F Vondra

0.013006365 = product of:
  0.039019093 = sum of:
    0.01572112 = weight(_text_:in in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01572112 = score(doc=789,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

An introduction to the principal generic approaches to information retrieval research with their associated concepts, models and systems, this text is designed to keep the information professional up to date with the major themes and developments that have preoccupied researchers in recent month in relation to textual and documentary retrieval systems.

Content

First published 1991 as New horizons in information retrieval

Date

26. 7.2002 20:22:46

Footnote

Rez. in: Managing information 3(1996) no.10, S.49 (D. Bawden); Program 32(1998) no.2, S.190-192 (C. Revie)

0.012595272 = product of:
  0.037785813 = sum of:
    0.01740009 = weight(_text_:in in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01740009 = score(doc=5001,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.011818215 = product of:
  0.035454646 = sum of:
    0.01506892 = weight(_text_:in in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01506892 = score(doc=3002,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The test of retrieval effectiveness performed on IBM's STAIRS and reported in 'Communications of the ACM' 10 years ago, continues to be cited frequently in the information retrieval literature. The reasons for the study's continuing pertinence to today's research are discussed, and the political, legal, and commercial aspects of the study are presented. In addition, the method of calculating recall that was used in the STAIRS study is discussed in some detail, especially how it reduces the 5 major types of uncertainty in recall estimations. It is also suggested that this method of recall estimation may serve as the basis for recall estimations that might be truly comparable between systems

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.4-22

0.010896482 = product of:
  0.032689445 = sum of:
    0.012303721 = weight(_text_:in in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012303721 = score(doc=5598,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Research shows that 65-80% of subject search terms fail to match the appropriate subject heading and one third to one half of subject searches result in no references being retrieved. Examines the subject search terms geberated by 82 school and college students in Princeton, NJ, evaluated the match between the named terms and the expected subject headings, proposes an explanation for match failures in relation to 3 invariant properties common to all search terms: concreteness, complexity, and syndeticity. Suggests that match failure is a consequence of developmental naming patterns and that these patterns can be overcome through the use of metacognitive naming skills

Date

2.11.1996 13:08:22

0.010347021 = product of:
  0.031041062 = sum of:
    0.010655336 = weight(_text_:in in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010655336 = score(doc=2718,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A study of the number of irrelevant documents retrieved in a co-ordinate indexing system that does not employ eitherr roles or links. These tests were based on one hundred actual inquiries received in the library and therefore an evaluation of recall efficiency is not included. Over half the enquiries produced no noise, but the mean average percentage niose figure was approximately 33 per cent based on a total average retireval figure of eighteen documents per search. Details of the size of the indexed collection, methods of indexing, and an analysis of the reasons for the retrieval of irrelevant documents are discussed, thereby providing information officers who are thinking of installing such a system with some evidence on which to base a decision as to whether or not to utilize these devices

Source

Journal of documentation. 22(1966), S.203-209

0.010347021 = product of:
  0.031041062 = sum of:
    0.010655336 = weight(_text_:in in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010655336 = score(doc=7302,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
    0.020385725 = product of:
      0.04077145 = sum of:
        0.04077145 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04077145 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The evaluation of information retrieval systems is an important yet difficult operation. This paper describes an exploratory evaluation study that takes an interpretive approach to evaluation. The longitudinal study examines evaluation through the information-seeking behaviour of 22 case studies of 'real' users. The eclectic approach to data collection produced behavioral data that is compared with relevance judgements and satisfaction ratings. The study demonstrates considerable variations among the cases, among different evaluation measures within the same case, and among the same measures at different stages within a single case. It is argued that those involved in evaluation should be aware of the difficulties, and base any evaluation on a good understanding of the cases in question

0.010109557 = product of:
  0.030328669 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5002, 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=5002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

19. 3.1996 11:22:12

0.010109557 = product of:
  0.030328669 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, 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=6971)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Describes the Reuters test collection, which at 22.173 references is significantly larger than most traditional test collections. In addition, Reuters has none of the recall calculation problems normally associated with some of the larger test collections available. Explains the method derived by D.D. Lewis to perform retrieval experiments on the Reuters collection and illustrates the use of the Reuters collection using some simple retrieval experiments that compare the performance of stemming algorithms

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.010109557 = product of:
  0.030328669 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 744, 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=744)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

TREC ia an annual conference held in the USA devoted to electronic systems for large full text information searching. The conference deals with evaluation and comparison techniques developed since 1992 by participants from the research and industrial fields. The work of the conference is destined for designers (rather than users) of systems which access full text information. Describes the context, objectives, organization, evaluation methods and limits of TREC

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.010109557 = product of:
  0.030328669 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3087, 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=3087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Proceedings of the 5th TREC-confrerence held in Gaithersburgh, Maryland, Nov 20-22, 1996. Aim of the conference was discussion on retrieval techniques for large test collections. Different research groups used different techniques, such as automated thesauri, term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The proceedings include papers, tables of the system results, and brief system descriptions including timing and storage information

0.010109557 = product of:
  0.030328669 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Die deutschen Suchmaschinen, Abacho, Acoon, Fireball und Lycos sowie die Web-Kataloge Web.de und Yahoo! werden einem Qualitätstest nach relativem Recall, Precision und Availability unterzogen. Die Methoden der Retrievaltests werden vorgestellt. Im Durchschnitt werden bei einem Cut-Off-Wert von 25 ein Recall von rund 22%, eine Precision von knapp 19% und eine Verfügbarkeit von 24% erreicht

Footnote

Vgl. auch den Bericht in: nfd 53(2002) H.2, S.71

0.010109557 = product of:
  0.030328669 = sum of:
    0.007030698 = weight(_text_:in in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007030698 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.058476754 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042989567 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
    0.023297971 = product of:
      0.046595942 = sum of:
        0.046595942 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595942 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15054214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042989567 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Proceedings of the llth TREC-conference held in Gaithersburg, Maryland (USA), November 19-22, 2002. Aim of the conference was discussion an retrieval and related information-seeking tasks for large test collection. 93 research groups used different techniques, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The tasks are: Cross-language searching, filtering, interactive searching, searching for novelty, question answering, searching for video shots, and Web searching.