Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08380928 = product of:
  0.12571391 = sum of:
    0.07501928 = weight(_text_:search in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07501928 = score(doc=3091,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
    0.05069464 = product of:
      0.10138928 = sum of:
        0.10138928 = weight(_text_:engines in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10138928 = score(doc=3091,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Because of the increasing presence of scientific publications an the Web, combined with the existing difficulties in easily verifying and retrieving these publications, research an techniques and methods for retrieval of scientific Web publications is called for. In this article, we report an the initial steps taken toward the construction of a test collection of scientific Web publications within the subject domain of plant biology. The steps reported are those of data gathering and data analysis aiming at identifying characteristics of scientific Web publications. The data used in this article were generated based an specifically selected domain topics that are searched for in three publicly accessible search engines (Google, AlITheWeb, and AItaVista). A sample of the retrieved hits was analyzed with regard to how various publication attributes correlated with the scientific quality of the content and whether this information could be employed to harvest, filter, and rank Web publications. The attributes analyzed were inlinks, outlinks, bibliographic references, file format, language, search engine overlap, structural position (according to site structure), and the occurrence of various types of metadata. As could be expected, the ranked output differs between the three search engines. Apparently, this is caused by differences in ranking algorithms rather than the databases themselves. In fact, because scientific Web content in this subject domain receives few inlinks, both AItaVista and AlITheWeb retrieved a higher degree of accessible scientific content than Google. Because of the search engine cutoffs of accessible URLs, the feasibility of using search engine output for Web content analysis is also discussed.

0.035786286 = product of:
  0.10735885 = sum of:
    0.10735885 = weight(_text_:search in 3896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10735885 = score(doc=3896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 3896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3896)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.035505608 = product of:
  0.10651682 = sum of:
    0.10651682 = weight(_text_:search in 2185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10651682 = score(doc=2185,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6095997 = fieldWeight in 2185, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2185)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports experimental results concerning user interaction with document organisation, user-librarian negotiation and the librarian's search process in public libraries. The focus of the investigations is on the cognitive aspects of information retrieval. Discusses the cognitive viewpoint on which the research is based, outlining applicable findings and theories within the fields of cognitive science and cognitive psychology. It is shown how the user's knowledge structure cope with the structures of the system. User needs seem often to be presented as a label which may create ambiguity problems. Functions of open and closed questions are investigated and certain behaviouristic factors discussed. Librarians prefer search activity before consideration of the presented problem. Without a user present the librarian's information retrieval process is determined by 3 search attitudes involving motives and expectations as to search routines and possibilities. Conceptual knowledge, previous search and working domain play important roles. The attitudes have consequences for the objectives concerning use of routines and for the use of search concepts

0.026839714 = product of:
  0.08051914 = sum of:
    0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 8923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08051914 = score(doc=8923,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 8923, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8923)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 7322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=7322,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7322, 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=7322)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 14(1989), S.17-22

0.015815454 = product of:
  0.04744636 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=2117,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2117, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2117)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The principle of polyrepresentation offers a theoretical framework for handling multiple contexts in information retrieval (IR). This paper presents an empirical laboratory study of polyrepresentation in restricted mode of the information space with focus on inter and intra-document features. The Cystic Fibrosis test collection indexed in the best match system InQuery constitutes the experimental setting. Overlaps between five functionally and/or cognitively different document representations are identified. Supporting the principle of polyrepresentation, results show that in general overlaps generated by three or four representations of different nature have higher precision than those generated from two representations or the single fields. This result pertains to both structured and unstructured query mode in best match retrieval, however, with the latter query mode demonstrating higher performance. The retrieval overlaps containing search keys from the bibliographic references provide the best retrieval performance and minor MeSH terms the worst. It is concluded that a highly structured query language is necessary when implementing the principle of polyrepresentation in a best match IR system because the principle is inherently Boolean. Finally a re-ranking test shows promising results when search results are re-ranked according to precision obtained in the overlaps whilst re-ranking by citations seems less useful when integrated into polyrepresentative applications.

0.0045408574 = product of:
  0.013622572 = sum of:
    0.013622572 = product of:
      0.027245143 = sum of:
        0.027245143 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027245143 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:48:28