Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06476976 = product of:
  0.09715463 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
    0.05018513 = product of:
      0.10037026 = sum of:
        0.10037026 = weight(_text_:engines in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10037026 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In order to test the power of metadata on information retrieval, an experiment was designed and conducted on a group of 7 graduate students using the Dublin Core as the cataloguing metadata. Results show that, on average, the retrieval error rate is only 2.9 per cent for the MES system (http://140.136.85.194), which utilizes the Dublin Core to describe the documents on the World Wide Web, in contrast to 20.7 per cent for the 7 famous search engines including HOTBOT, GAIS, LYCOS, EXCITE, INFOSEEK, YAHOO, and OCTOPUS. The very low error rate indicates that the users can use the information of the Dublin Core to decide whether to retrieve the documents or not

0.022366427 = product of:
  0.06709928 = sum of:
    0.06709928 = weight(_text_:search in 1827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06709928 = score(doc=1827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 1827, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1827)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the current status of retrieval system evaluation and predicts its future development. discusses various performance measures and 'utility' concepts from a historical perspective. Also addresses the current status of search evaluation and dicusses the empirical findings of retrieval system evaluation

0.011183213 = product of:
  0.03354964 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 5159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=5159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 5159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5159)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One of the major causes of search failures in information retrieval systems is vocabulary mismatch. Presents a solution to the vocabulary problem through 2 strategies known as term suggestion (TS) and term relevance feedback (TRF). In TS, collection specific terms are extracted from the text collection. These terms and their frequencies constitute the keyword database for suggesting terms in response to users' queries. One effect of this term suggestion is that it functions as a dynamic directory if the query is a general term that contains broad meaning. In term relevance feedback, terms extracted from the top ranked documents retrieved from the previous query are shown to users for relevance feedback. In the experiment, interactive TS provides very high precision rates while achieving similar recall rates as n-gram matching. Local TRF achieves improvement in both precision and recall rate in a full text news database and degrades slightly in recall rate in bibliographic databases due to the very limited source of information for feedback. In terms of Rijsbergen's combined measure of recall and precision, both TS and TRF achieve better performance than n-gram matching, which implies that the greater improvement in precision rate compensates the slight degradation in recall rate for TS and TRF