-
Harter, S.P.; Cheng, Y.-R.: Colinked descriptors : improving vocabulary selection for end-user searching (1996)
0.04
0.043076646 = product of:
0.08615329 = sum of:
0.07720201 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07720201 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.3454256 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.008951281 = product of:
0.026853843 = sum of:
0.026853843 = weight(_text_:systems in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026853843 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible
-
Deaves, J.C.; Pache, J.E.: Chemical and numerical indexing for the INSPEC database (1989)
0.02
0.02251725 = product of:
0.090069 = sum of:
0.090069 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.090069 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.40299654 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The wealth of chemical information on the INSPEC database is easily retrieved using the printed subject indexes to the associated abstract journals. However, this subject indexing is insufficient for machine retrieval, and free-text searching has special difficulties. An easy-to-use retrieval system has been developed which overcomes many problems, especially the retrieval of non-stoichiometric compositions, which are a feature solid-state chemistry. The scheme is limited to inorganic material, but allows flexibility and identification of dopants, interfaces and surfaces or substrates. At the same time, a system has been introduced for the online retrieval of numerical data included in the data base. This has successfully standardized the way in which such data is held for searching, enabling further refinement of searches where numerical information is significant
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960)
0.02
0.020573815 = product of:
0.08229526 = sum of:
0.08229526 = product of:
0.12344289 = sum of:
0.053707685 = weight(_text_:systems in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053707685 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
0.0697352 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0697352 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
-
Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006)
0.01
0.013182587 = product of:
0.052730348 = sum of:
0.052730348 = product of:
0.07909552 = sum of:
0.050039183 = weight(_text_:systems in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050039183 = score(doc=5784,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029056335 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: Evaluation tests of information retrieval systems (1970)
0.01
0.00596752 = product of:
0.02387008 = sum of:
0.02387008 = product of:
0.07161024 = sum of:
0.07161024 = weight(_text_:systems in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07161024 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: Aslib Cranfield research project : report on the testing and analysis of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1962)
0.01
0.00596752 = product of:
0.02387008 = sum of:
0.02387008 = product of:
0.07161024 = sum of:
0.07161024 = weight(_text_:systems in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07161024 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Azubuike, A.A.; Umoh, J.S.: Computerized information storage and retrieval systems (1988)
0.01
0.00596752 = product of:
0.02387008 = sum of:
0.02387008 = product of:
0.07161024 = sum of:
0.07161024 = weight(_text_:systems in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07161024 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Boyce, B.R.; McLain, J.P.: Entry point depth and online search using a controlled vocabulary (1989)
0.01
0.0052215806 = product of:
0.020886322 = sum of:
0.020886322 = product of:
0.062658966 = sum of:
0.062658966 = weight(_text_:systems in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062658966 = score(doc=2287,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The depth of indexing, the number of terms assigned on average to each document in a retrieval system as entry points, has a significantly effect on the standard retrieval performance measures in modern commercial retrieval systems, just as it did in previous experimental work. Tests on the effect of basic index search, as opposed to controlled vocabulary search, in these real systems are quite different than traditional comparisons of free text searching with controlled vocabulary searching. In modern commercial systems the controlled vocabulary serves as a precision device, since the strucure of the default for unqualified search terms in these systems requires that it do so.
-
Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.; Keen, M.: Factors determining the performance of indexing systems : ASLIB Cranfield research project (1966)
0.01
0.0052215806 = product of:
0.020886322 = sum of:
0.020886322 = product of:
0.062658966 = sum of:
0.062658966 = weight(_text_:systems in 5363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062658966 = score(doc=5363,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 5363, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5363)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Ladewig, C.; Rieger, M.: Ähnlichkeitsmessung mit und ohne aspektische Indexierung (1998)
0.00
0.0039093453 = product of:
0.015637381 = sum of:
0.015637381 = product of:
0.04691214 = sum of:
0.04691214 = weight(_text_:29 in 2526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04691214 = score(doc=2526,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2526, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2526)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 4. 1.1999 19:31:29
-
Bade, D.: ¬The creation and persistence of misinformation in shared library catalogs : language and subject knowledge in a technological era (2002)
0.00
0.0038917614 = product of:
0.015567046 = sum of:
0.015567046 = product of:
0.023350568 = sum of:
0.011728035 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011728035 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
0.011622533 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011622533 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
- Footnote
- Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)
-
Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996)
0.00
0.0038741778 = product of:
0.015496711 = sum of:
0.015496711 = product of:
0.046490133 = sum of:
0.046490133 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046490133 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
-
Rowley, J.: ¬The controlled versus natural indexing languages debate revisited : a perspective on information retrieval practice and research (1994)
0.00
0.0037297006 = product of:
0.014918802 = sum of:
0.014918802 = product of:
0.044756405 = sum of:
0.044756405 = weight(_text_:systems in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044756405 = score(doc=7151,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases
-
Ballard, R.M.: Indexing and its relevance to technical processing (1993)
0.00
0.0037297006 = product of:
0.014918802 = sum of:
0.014918802 = product of:
0.044756405 = sum of:
0.044756405 = weight(_text_:systems in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044756405 = score(doc=554,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The development of regional on-line catalogs and in-house information systems for retrieval of references provide examples of the impact of indexing theory and applications on technical processing. More emphasis must be given to understanding the techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of a file, irrespective of whether that file was created as a library catalog or an index to information sources. The most significant advances in classification theory in recent decades has been as a result of efforts to improve effectiveness of indexing systems. Library classification systems are indexing languages or systems. Courses offered for the preparation of indexers in the United States and the United Kingdom are reviewed. A point of congruence for both the indexer and the library classifier would appear to be the need for a thorough preparation in the techniques of subject analysis. Any subject heading list will suffer from omissions as well as the inclusion of terms which the patron will never use. Indexing theory has provided the technical services department with methods for evaluation of effectiveness. The writer does not believe that these techniques are used, nor do current courses, workshops, and continuing education programs stress them. When theory is totally subjugated to practice, critical thinking and maximum effectiveness will suffer.
-
Morris, L.R.: ¬The frequency of use of Library of Congress Classification numbers and Dewey Decimal Classification numbers in the MARC file in the field of library science (1991)
0.00
0.003692215 = product of:
0.01476886 = sum of:
0.01476886 = product of:
0.04430658 = sum of:
0.04430658 = weight(_text_:systems in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04430658 = score(doc=2308,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The LCC and DDC systems were devised and updated by librarians who had and have no access to the eventual frequency of use of each number in those classification systems. 80% of the monographs in a MARC file of over 1.000.000 records are classified into 20% of the classification numbers in the field of library science and only 20% of the mongraphs are classified into 80% of the classification numbers in the field of library science. Classification of monographs coulld be made easier and performed more accurately if many of the little used and unused numbers were eliminated and many of the most crowded numbers were expanded. A number of examples are included
-
Hersh, W.R.; Hickam, D.H.: ¬A comparison of two methods for indexing and retrieval from a full-text medical database (1992)
0.00
0.003692215 = product of:
0.01476886 = sum of:
0.01476886 = product of:
0.04430658 = sum of:
0.04430658 = weight(_text_:systems in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04430658 = score(doc=4526,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study of 2 information retrieval systems on a 2.000 document full text medical database. The first system, SAPHIRE, features concept based automatic indexing and statistical retrieval techniques, while the second system, SWORD, features traditional word based Boolean techniques, 16 medical students at Oregon Health Sciences Univ. each performed 10 searches and their results, recorded in terms of recall and precision, showed nearly equal performance for both systems. SAPHIRE was also compared with a version of SWORD modified to use automatic indexing and ranked retrieval. Using batch input of queries, the latter method performed slightly better
-
Chartron, G.; Dalbin, S.; Monteil, M.-G.; Verillon, M.: Indexation manuelle et indexation automatique : dépasser les oppositions (1989)
0.00
0.003692215 = product of:
0.01476886 = sum of:
0.01476886 = product of:
0.04430658 = sum of:
0.04430658 = weight(_text_:systems in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04430658 = score(doc=3516,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Report of a study comparing 2 methods of indexing: LEXINET, a computerised system for indexing titles and summaries only; and manual indexing of full texts, using the thesaurus developed by French Electricity (EDF). Both systems were applied to a collection of approximately 2.000 documents on artifical intelligence from the EDF data base. The results were then analysed to compare quantitative performance (number and range of terms) and qualitative performance (ambiguity of terms, specificity, variability, consistency). Overall, neither system proved ideal: LEXINET was deficient as regards lack of accessibility and excessive ambiguity; while the manual system gave rise to an over-wide variation of terms. The ideal system would appear to be a combination of automatic and manual systems, on the evidence produced here.
-
Soergel, D.: Indexing and retrieval performance : the logical evidence (1994)
0.00
0.003692215 = product of:
0.01476886 = sum of:
0.01476886 = product of:
0.04430658 = sum of:
0.04430658 = weight(_text_:systems in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04430658 = score(doc=579,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This article presents a logical analysis of the characteristics of indexing and their effects on retrieval performance.It establishes the ability to ask the questions one needs to ask as the foundation of performance evaluation, and recall and discrimination as the basic quantitative performance measures for binary noninteractive retrieval systems. It then defines the characteristics of indexing that affect retrieval - namely, indexing devices, viewpoint-based and importance-based indexing exhaustivity, indexing specifity, indexing correctness, and indexing consistency - and examines in detail their effects on retrieval. It concludes that retrieval performance depends chiefly on the match between indexing and the requirements of the individual query and on the adaption of the query formulation to the characteristics of the retrieval system, and that the ensuing complexity must be considered in the design and testing of retrieval systems
-
Booth, A.: How consistent is MEDLINE indexing? (1990)
0.00
0.0033899057 = product of:
0.013559623 = sum of:
0.013559623 = product of:
0.040678866 = sum of:
0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040678866 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Health libraries review. 7(1990) no.1, S.22-26
-
Neshat, N.; Horri, A.: ¬A study of subject indexing consistency between the National Library of Iran and Humanities Libraries in the area of Iranian studies (2006)
0.00
0.0033899057 = product of:
0.013559623 = sum of:
0.013559623 = product of:
0.040678866 = sum of:
0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040678866 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04289195 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 230, 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=230)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 4. 1.2007 10:22:26
