Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Brown, M.E.: By any other name : accounting for failure in the naming of subject categories (1995) 0.07 
    0.07086638 = product of:
  0.14173277 = sum of:
    0.14173277 = sum of:
      0.093163446 = weight(_text_:headings in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.093163446 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211677 = queryNorm
          0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
      0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048569325 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211677 = 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)
    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
  2. Voorbij, H.: ¬Een goede titel behoeft geen trefwoord, of toch wel? : een vergelijkend oderzoek titelwoorden - trefwoorden (1997) 0.06 
    0.057050727 = product of:
  0.114101455 = sum of:
    0.114101455 = product of:
      0.22820291 = sum of:
        0.22820291 = weight(_text_:headings in 1446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22820291 = score(doc=1446,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.91878825 = fieldWeight in 1446, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1446)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A recent survey at the Royal Library in the Netherlands showed that subject headings are more efficient than title keywords for retrieval purposes. 475 Dutch publications were selected at random and assigned subject headings. The study showed that subject headings provided additional useful information in 56% of titles. Subsequent searching of the library's online catalogue showed that 88% of titles were retrieved via subject headings against 57% through title keywords. Further precision may be achieved with the help of indexing staff, but at considerable cost
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: A good title has no need of subject headings, or does it?: a comparative study of title keywords against subject headings
  3. Voorbij, H.: Titelwoorden - trefwoorden : een vergelijkend onderzoek (1997) 0.05 
    0.046581723 = product of:
  0.093163446 = sum of:
    0.093163446 = product of:
      0.18632689 = sum of:
        0.18632689 = weight(_text_:headings in 3175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18632689 = score(doc=3175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.75018746 = fieldWeight in 3175, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: Title words - subject headings: a comparative research
  4. Drabenstott, K.M.; Vizine-Goetz, D.: Using subject headings for online retrieval : theory, practice and potential (1994) 0.03 
    0.034577962 = product of:
  0.069155924 = sum of:
    0.069155924 = product of:
      0.13831185 = sum of:
        0.13831185 = weight(_text_:headings in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13831185 = score(doc=386,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.55686975 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using subject headings for Online Retrieval is an indispensable tool for online system desingners who are developing new systems or refining exicting ones. The book describes subject analysis and subject searching in online catalogs, including the limitations of retrieval, and demonstrates how such limitations can be overcome through system design and programming. The book describes the Library of Congress Subject headings system and system characteristics, shows how information is stored in machine readable files, and offers examples of and recommendations for successful methods. Tables are included to support these recommendations, and diagrams, graphs, and bar charts are used to provide results of data analyses.
  5. Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Parker, J.: Maximizing relevant retrieval : keyword and natural language searching (1998) 0.02 
    0.024284663 = product of:
  0.048569325 = sum of:
    0.048569325 = product of:
      0.09713865 = sum of:
        0.09713865 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09713865 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58
  6. Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990) 0.02 
    0.024284663 = product of:
  0.048569325 = sum of:
    0.048569325 = product of:
      0.09713865 = sum of:
        0.09713865 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09713865 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:43:54
  7. Tibbo, H.R.: ¬The epic struggle : subject retrieval from large bibliographic databases (1994) 0.02 
    0.019963596 = product of:
  0.039927192 = sum of:
    0.039927192 = product of:
      0.079854384 = sum of:
        0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 2179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079854384 = score(doc=2179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 2179, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Discusses a retrieval study that focused on collection level archival records in the OCLC OLUC, made accessible through the EPIC online search system. Data were also collected from the local OPAC at North Carolina University at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in which UNC-CH produced OCLC records are loaded. The chief objective was to explore the retrieval environments in which a random sample of USMARC AMC records produced at UNC-CH were found: specifically to obtain a picture of the density of these databases in regard to each subject heading applied and, more generally, for each records. Key questions were: how many records would be retrieved for each subject heading attached to each of the records; and what was the nature of these subject headings vis a vis the numer of hits associated with them. Results show that large retrieval sets are a potential problem with national bibliographic utilities and that the local and national retrieval environments can vary greatly. The need for specifity in indexing is emphasized
  8. McJunkin, M.C.: Precision and recall in title keyword searching (1995) 0.02 
    0.019963596 = product of:
  0.039927192 = sum of:
    0.039927192 = product of:
      0.079854384 = sum of:
        0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 3351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079854384 = score(doc=3351,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 3351, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3351)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Investigates the extent to which title keywords convey subject content and compares the relative effectiveness of searching title keywords using 2 search strategies to examine whether adjacency operators in title keyword searches are effective in improving recall and precision of online searching. Title keywords from a random sample of titles in the field of economics were searched on FirstSearch, using the WorldCat database, which is equivalent in coverage to the OCLC OLUC, with and without adjacency of the keywords specified. The LCSH of the items retrieved were compared with the sample title subject headings to determine the degree of match or relevance and the values for precision and recall were calculated. Results indicated that, when keywords were discipline specific, adjacency operators improved precision with little degradation of recall. Systems that allow positional operators or rank output by proximity of terms may increase search success
  9. Allan, J.; Callan, J.P.; Croft, W.B.; Ballesteros, L.; Broglio, J.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.: INQUERY at TREC-5 (1997) 0.02 
    0.017346188 = product of:
  0.034692377 = sum of:
    0.034692377 = product of:
      0.06938475 = sum of:
        0.06938475 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06938475 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3103, 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=3103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:55:22
  10. Ng, K.B.; Loewenstern, D.; Basu, C.; Hirsh, H.; Kantor, P.B.: Data fusion of machine-learning methods for the TREC5 routing tak (and other work) (1997) 0.02 
    0.017346188 = product of:
  0.034692377 = sum of:
    0.034692377 = product of:
      0.06938475 = sum of:
        0.06938475 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06938475 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, 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=3107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:59:22
  11. Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996) 0.01 
    0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  12. Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997) 0.01 
    0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  13. ¬The Fifth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-5) (1997) 0.01 
    0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  14. Pemberton, J.K.; Ojala, M.; Garman, N.: Head to head : searching the Web versus traditional services (1998) 0.01 
    0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28
  15. Ellis, D.: Progress and problems in information retrieval (1996) 0.01 
    0.01387695 = product of:
  0.0277539 = sum of:
    0.0277539 = product of:
      0.0555078 = sum of:
        0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0555078 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26. 7.2002 20:22:46
  16. Smithson, S.: Information retrieval evaluation in practice : a case study approach (1994) 0.01 
    0.012142331 = product of:
  0.024284663 = sum of:
    0.024284663 = product of:
      0.048569325 = sum of:
        0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048569325 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  17. Blair, D.C.: STAIRS Redux : thoughts on the STAIRS evaluation, ten years after (1996) 0.01 
    0.012142331 = product of:
  0.024284663 = sum of:
    0.024284663 = product of:
      0.048569325 = sum of:
        0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048569325 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.4-22
  18. Losee, R.M.: Determining information retrieval and filtering performance without experimentation (1995) 0.01 
    0.012142331 = product of:
  0.024284663 = sum of:
    0.024284663 = product of:
      0.048569325 = sum of:
        0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048569325 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3368, 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=3368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.1996 13:14:10
  19. Iivonen, M.: Consistency in the selection of search concepts and search terms (1995) 0.01 
    0.010407712 = product of:
  0.020815425 = sum of:
    0.020815425 = product of:
      0.04163085 = sum of:
        0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163085 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions
  20. Wood, F.; Ford, N.; Miller, D.; Sobczyk, G.; Duffin, R.: Information skills, searching behaviour and cognitive styles for student-centred learning : a computer-assisted learning approach (1996) 0.01 
    0.010407712 = product of:
  0.020815425 = sum of:
    0.020815425 = product of:
      0.04163085 = sum of:
        0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04163085 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211677 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes