Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04025957 = product of:
  0.1207787 = sum of:
    0.1207787 = weight(_text_:search in 1667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1207787 = score(doc=1667,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.691221 = fieldWeight in 1667, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1667)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses a new model of search term selection and its implications. The model characterizes the selection of search terms as the navigation of multiple discourses, including controlled vocabularies, documents and their domains, the practice of indexing, clients' speech and search requests, databases and the searcher's own knowledge of the search process. Suggests that the multiple aspects of these discourses influences search term selection. The discourse of a controlled vocabulary is analyzed from various aspects and described as an example of a discourse. Professional searchers and the end users may benefit from adopting this new model of search term selection, learning to see alternative, effective search terms in addition to the words they would normally use. The model can also be incorporated in human computer interfaces of information retrieval systems to support the selection of search terms in a passive or active manner

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Navigation in the selection of search terms

0.025304725 = product of:
  0.075914174 = sum of:
    0.075914174 = weight(_text_:search in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075914174 = score(doc=628,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.43445963 = fieldWeight in 628, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=628)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the problems caused by the growth of bibliographic databases. Major problems are caused by seacrh systems based on Boolean operations because of the slowness, broad indexing and user difficulties due to present user links and search systems. Some suggested solutions are: use of combined search algorithms, more specific indexing, thesauri and improved user links

0.025304725 = product of:
  0.075914174 = sum of:
    0.075914174 = weight(_text_:search in 542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075914174 = score(doc=542,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.43445963 = fieldWeight in 542, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=542)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Covers the differences between traditional databases and the Internet, the choice of information seeking tools and methods for different types of searches, i.e. specific or complex. Stresses the importance of systematic searching and planning for searches, the choice of search terms and phrases, and the use of links. Mentions Internet Hunt (http://www.hunt.org/) and Net Stumpers Quiz (http://www.delphi.com/swashzone/netstumpers/stumpers.html/) as good ways of learning to search the net

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 4155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=4155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4155, 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=4155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 10:22:39

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Homonymy is known to often cause false drops in free text searching in a full text database. The problem is quite common and difficult to avoid in Finnish, but nobody has examined it before. Reports on a study that examined the frequency of, and solutions to, the homonymy problem, based on searches made in a Finnish full text database containing about 55.000 newspaper articles. The results indicate that homonymy is not a very serious problem in full text searching, with only about 1 search result set out of 4 containing false drops caused by homonymy. Several other reasons for nonrelevance were much more common. However, in some set results there were a considerable number of homonymy errors, so the number seems to be very random. A study was also made into whether homonyms can be disambiguated by syntactic analysis. The result was that 75,2% of homonyms were disambiguated by this method. Verb homonyms were considerably easier to disambiguate than substantives. Although homonymy is not a very big problem it could perhaps easily be eliminated if there was a suitable syntactic analyzer in the IR system