Search (114 results, page 1 of 6)

0.11446317 = product of:
  0.22892635 = sum of:
    0.22892635 = sum of:
      0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13086292 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 6418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6418)
      0.098063424 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.098063424 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, 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=6418)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58

0.11446317 = product of:
  0.22892635 = sum of:
    0.22892635 = sum of:
      0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13086292 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.098063424 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.098063424 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = 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)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:43:54

0.11162338 = product of:
  0.22324675 = sum of:
    0.22324675 = sum of:
      0.16721052 = weight(_text_:searching in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16721052 = score(doc=4049,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.7995209 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
      0.05603624 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05603624 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = 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)

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.

0.08118117 = product of:
  0.16236234 = sum of:
    0.16236234 = sum of:
      0.11333063 = weight(_text_:searching in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11333063 = score(doc=5001,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.541893 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.049031712 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049031712 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = 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)

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

0.069583856 = product of:
  0.13916771 = sum of:
    0.13916771 = sum of:
      0.097140536 = weight(_text_:searching in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.097140536 = score(doc=4341,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.46447968 = fieldWeight in 4341, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4341)
      0.04202718 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04202718 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4341, 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=4341)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Undergraduates were tested to establish how they searched databases, the effectiveness of their searches and their satisfaction with them. The students' cognitive and learning styles were determined by the Lancaster Approaches to Studying Inventory and Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis tests. There were significant differences in the searching behaviour and the effectiveness of the searches carried out by students with different learning and cognitive styles. Computer-assisted learning (CAL) packages were developed for three departments. The effectiveness of the packages were evaluated. Significant differences were found in the ways students with different learning styles used the packages. Based on the experience gained, guidelines for the teaching of information skills and the production and use of packages were prepared. About 2/3 of the searches had serious weaknesses, indicating a need for effective training. It appears that choice of searching strategies, search effectiveness and use of CAL packages are all affected by the cognitive and learning styles of the searcher. Therefore, students should be made aware of their own styles and, if appropriate, how to adopt more effective strategies

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92

0.06540753 = product of:
  0.13081506 = sum of:
    0.13081506 = sum of:
      0.07477882 = weight(_text_:searching in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07477882 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
      0.05603624 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05603624 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = 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)

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

0.06540753 = product of:
  0.13081506 = sum of:
    0.13081506 = sum of:
      0.07477882 = weight(_text_:searching in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07477882 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 3572, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3572)
      0.05603624 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05603624 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28

0.040879704 = product of:
  0.08175941 = sum of:
    0.08175941 = sum of:
      0.04673676 = weight(_text_:searching in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04673676 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.035022654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035022654 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.040879704 = product of:
  0.08175941 = sum of:
    0.08175941 = sum of:
      0.04673676 = weight(_text_:searching in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04673676 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
      0.035022654 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035022654 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18104185 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051699217 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process. Findings - This study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment. Research limitations/implications - Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments. Practical implications - If multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short-term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions. Originality/value - This study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:29:22

0.040068425 = product of:
  0.08013685 = sum of:
    0.08013685 = product of:
      0.1602737 = sum of:
        0.1602737 = weight(_text_:searching in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1602737 = score(doc=1857,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.76635236 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines 3 aspects of keyword searching to see if defaulting to keyword searches might serve as a solution to the problems users find when performing subject searches in OPACs. Investigates if keyword searching produces useful results; if people who use keyword searches to find information on a subject report that they are satisfied with the results; and how keyword searching and controlled vocabulary searching are offered and explained in currently available OPAC interfaces. Concludes that both keyword and controlled vocabulary searching ought to be easily available in an OPAC, and that improvements need to be made in explanation and help offered to subject searchers

0.038752075 = product of:
  0.07750415 = sum of:
    0.07750415 = product of:
      0.1550083 = sum of:
        0.1550083 = weight(_text_:searching in 1327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1550083 = score(doc=1327,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.7411757 = fieldWeight in 1327, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Researchers have traditionally used bibliographic databases to search out information. Today, the full-text of resources is increasingly available for searching, and more researchers are performing full-text searches. This study compares differences in the number of articles discovered between metadata and full-text searches of the same literature cohort when searching for gene names in two biomedical literature domains. Three reviewers additionally ranked 100 articles in each domain. Significantly more articles were discovered via full-text searching; however, the precision of full-text searching also is significantly lower than that of metadata searching. Certain features of articles correlated with higher relevance ratings. A significant feature measured was the number of matches of the search term in the full-text of the article, with a larger number of matches having a statistically significant higher usefulness (i.e., relevance) rating. By using the number of hits of the search term in the full-text to rank the importance of the article, performance of full-text searching was improved so that both recall and precision were as good as or better than that for metadata searching. This suggests that full-text searching alone may be sufficient, and that metadata searching as a surrogate is not necessary.

0.03738941 = product of:
  0.07477882 = sum of:
    0.07477882 = product of:
      0.14955764 = sum of:
        0.14955764 = weight(_text_:searching in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14955764 = score(doc=2494,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.7151132 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An experiment was conducted using 3 data bases in library and information science - Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Information Science Abstracts and ERIC - to investigate some of the main factors affecting on-line searching: effectiveness of search vocabularies, combinations of fields searched, and overlaps among databases. Natural language, controlled vocabulary and a mixture of natural language and controlled terms were tested using different fields of bibliographic records. Also discusses a comparative evaluation of single and multi-data base searching, measuring the overlap among data bases and their influence upon on-line searching.

0.03738941 = product of:
  0.07477882 = sum of:
    0.07477882 = product of:
      0.14955764 = sum of:
        0.14955764 = weight(_text_:searching in 6978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14955764 = score(doc=6978,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.7151132 = fieldWeight in 6978, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Getty Online Searching Project studied the end user searching behaviour of 27 humanities scholars over a 2 year period. A number of scholars anticipated that they were already familiar with a percentage of records their searches retrieved. High document familiarity can be a significant factor in searching: Draws implications regarding the impact of high document familiarity on relevance and information retrieval theory. Makes speculations regarding high document familiarity and Bradford's law

0.03271573 = product of:
  0.06543146 = sum of:
    0.06543146 = product of:
      0.13086292 = sum of:
        0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13086292 = score(doc=1896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03271573 = product of:
  0.06543146 = sum of:
    0.06543146 = product of:
      0.13086292 = sum of:
        0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 7416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13086292 = score(doc=7416,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 7416, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports an experiment conducted to study search behaviour of different user groups in a hypertext information retrieval system. A three-way analysis of variance test was conducted to study the effects of gender, search task, and search experience on search option (analytical searching versus browsing), as measured by the proportion of nodes reached through analytical searching. The search task factor influenced search option in that a general task caused more browsing and specific task more analytical searching. Gender or search experience alone did not affect the search option. These findings are discussed in light of evaluation of existing systems and implications for future design

0.03271573 = product of:
  0.06543146 = sum of:
    0.06543146 = product of:
      0.13086292 = sum of:
        0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13086292 = score(doc=347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03271573 = product of:
  0.06543146 = sum of:
    0.06543146 = product of:
      0.13086292 = sum of:
        0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 2050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13086292 = score(doc=2050,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 2050, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2050)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The traditional measures of online searching proficiency (recall and precision) are less appropriate when applied to the searching of full text databases. The pilot study investigated and evaluated 5 measures of overall success in searching a full text data bank. Data was drawn from INQUIRER searches conducted by medical students at North Carolina Univ. at Chapel Hill. INQUIRER ia an online database of facts and concepts in microbiology. The 5 measures were: success/failure; precision; search term overlap; number of search cycles; and time per search. Concludes that the last 4 measures look promising for the evaluation of fact data bases such as ENQUIRER

0.03271573 = product of:
  0.06543146 = sum of:
    0.06543146 = product of:
      0.13086292 = sum of:
        0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13086292 = score(doc=3849,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The transition from searching in a single database to searching a multiplicity of networked databases exacerbates some old difficulties in the design and evaluation of retrieval systems and creates new one. A networked environment calls into question the traditional definitions of recall and relevance. Efficient network searching raises questions about where to look first, where to look next and when to stop searching. The need for 'entry vocabulary' support and the need for support in moving from one system vocabulary to another are increased by the increased use of more different databases. The network environment offers the option of collecting different representations of the same object and merging them into an extended record

0.03271573 = product of:
  0.06543146 = sum of:
    0.06543146 = product of:
      0.13086292 = sum of:
        0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 3853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13086292 = score(doc=3853,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 3853, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers 2 non-Boolean searching systems available on commercial online systems. QUESTQUORUM, based on coordination level searching, was introduced by ESA/IRS in Dec. 85. TARGET, which employs partial match probabilistic retrieval was introduced by DIALOG in Dec 93. 6 subject searches were carried out on databases available on both Dialog and ESA/IRS to compare TARGET and QUESTQUORUM with Boolean searching. Outlines the main advantages of these tools, and their disadvantages. Suggests when their use may be preferable

0.03271573 = product of:
  0.06543146 = sum of:
    0.06543146 = product of:
      0.13086292 = sum of:
        0.13086292 = weight(_text_:searching in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13086292 = score(doc=3871,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2091384 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051699217 = queryNorm
            0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines the searching behaviour of Guardian journalists searching FT PROFILE online system. Using transactional log analysis compares the searching styles of journalists with those of Guardian librarians. In some respects end users conform to the picture that professionals have of them - they search with a very limited range of commands - but in other respects they confound that image - they are very quick and economical searchers. Their behaviour relates to their general information seeking behaviour, and their searching styles would be seen in this regard