Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

0.044422872 = product of:
  0.066634305 = sum of:
    0.037957087 = weight(_text_:search in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037957087 = score(doc=720,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.21722981 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
    0.028677218 = product of:
      0.057354435 = sum of:
        0.057354435 = weight(_text_:engines in 720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057354435 = score(doc=720,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 720, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The importance of indexing in developing a content navigation strategy for corporate intranets or portals and the value of high-quality indexing when retrieving information from external resources are reviewed in this white paper. Some general background information on indexing and the use of controlled vocabularies (or taxonomies) are included for a historical perspective. Factiva Intelligent Indexing-which incorporates the best indexing expertise from both Dow Jones Interactive and Reuters Business Briefing-is described, along with some novel customer applications that take advantage of Factiva's indexing to create or improve information products delivered to users. Examples from the Excite and Google web search engines and from Dow Jones Interactive and Reuters Business Briefing are included in an Appendix section to illustrate how indexing influences the amount and quality of information retrieved in a specific search.

0.044422872 = product of:
  0.066634305 = sum of:
    0.037957087 = weight(_text_:search in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037957087 = score(doc=721,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.21722981 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
    0.028677218 = product of:
      0.057354435 = sum of:
        0.057354435 = weight(_text_:engines in 721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057354435 = score(doc=721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In 2000, Factiva published "The Value of Indexing," a white paper emphasizing the strategic importance of accurate categorization, based on a robust taxonomy for later retrieval of documents stored in commercial or in-house content repositories. Since that time, there has been resounding agreement between persons who use Web-based systems and those who design these systems that search engines alone are not the answer for effective information retrieval. High-quality categorization is crucial if users are to be able to find the right answers in repositories of articles and documents that are expanding at phenomenal rates. Companies continue to invest in technologies that will help them organize and integrate their content. A March 2002 article in EContent suggests a typical taxonomy implementation usually costs around $100,000. The article also cites a Merrill Lynch study that predicts the market for search and categorization products, now at about $600 million, will more than double by 2005. Classification activities are not new. In the third century B.C., Callimachus of Cyrene managed the ancient Library of Alexandria. To help scholars find items in the collection, he created an index of all the scrolls organized according to a subject taxonomy. Factiva's parent companies, Dow Jones and Reuters, each have more than 20 years of experience with developing taxonomies and painstaking manual categorization processes and also have a solid history with automated categorization techniques. This experience and expertise put Factiva at the leading edge of developing and applying categorization technology today. This paper will update readers about enhancements made to the Factiva Intelligent IndexingT taxonomy. It examines the value these enhancements bring to Factiva's news and business information service, and the value brought to clients who license the Factiva taxonomy as a fundamental component of their own Enterprise Knowledge Architecture. There is a behind-the-scenes-look at how Factiva classifies a huge stream of incoming articles published in a variety of formats and languages. The paper concludes with an overview of new Factiva services and solutions that are designed specifically to help clients improve productivity and make solid business decisions by precisely finding information in their own everexpanding content repositories.

0.04142321 = product of:
  0.12426962 = sum of:
    0.12426962 = weight(_text_:search in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12426962 = score(doc=59,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.71119964 = fieldWeight in 59, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=59)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many Semantic Web applications provide access to their resources through text-based search queries, using explicit semantics to improve the search results. This paper provides an analysis of the current state of the art in semantic search, based on 35 existing systems. We identify different types of semantic search features that are used during query construction, the core search process, the presentation of the search results and user feedback on query and results. For each of these, we consider the functionality that the system provides and how this is made available through the user interface.

0.026839714 = product of:
  0.08051914 = sum of:
    0.08051914 = weight(_text_:search in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08051914 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.460814 = fieldWeight in 1033, 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=1033)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.022366427 = product of:
  0.06709928 = sum of:
    0.06709928 = weight(_text_:search in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06709928 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3840117 = fieldWeight in 3871, 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=3871)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.022141634 = product of:
  0.0664249 = sum of:
    0.0664249 = weight(_text_:search in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0664249 = score(doc=2419,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports the design, building and testing of the Interactive Ranked Output Search Engine (IROSE), which includes as the main features: query reformulation, ranked output match options, field bias options, marking of must, minus, and truncated suppressed terms. Both DOS and Windows versions of IROSE were constructed and laboratory search tests were performed using 3 test collections of records with queries and relevance jedgements in the subject area of cystic fibrosis, library and information and current affairs. Concludes that there is substantial evidence of the quality of this approach to information retrieval and future tests are needed to redefine and improve the optionality and move to semi operational testing

0.022141634 = product of:
  0.0664249 = sum of:
    0.0664249 = weight(_text_:search in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0664249 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A project to design a graphical user interface for the OKAPI online catalogue search system which uses the basic term weighting probabilistic search engine. Presents a research context of the project with a discussion of interface and functionality issues relating to the design of OPACs. Describes the design methodology and evaluation methodology. Presents the preliminary results of the field trial evaluation. Considers problems encountered in the field trial and discusses contributory factors to the effectiveness of interactive query expansion. Highlights the tension between usability and functionality in highly interactive retrieval and suggests further areas of research

0.020711605 = product of:
  0.06213481 = sum of:
    0.06213481 = weight(_text_:search in 6067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06213481 = score(doc=6067,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.35559982 = fieldWeight in 6067, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=6067)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Backgrund to the study: The question of multilingual access to bibliographic databases affects not only searchers in countries in which several languages are spoken such as Switzerland, but also all those who search material in databases containing material in more than one language, which is the case in the majority of scientific or research databases. he growth of networks means that we can easily access catalogues outside our own immediate circle - in another town, another country, another continent. In doing so we encounter problems concerning not only search interfaces, but also concerning subject access or even author access in another language. In France for example, each document, independently of the language in which it has been written, is indexed using a French-language subject heading language. Thus, in order to search by subject headings for documents written in English or German, held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the researcher from abroad has to master the French language. In theory, the indexer should be able to analyse a document and assign headings in his/her native language, while the user should be able to search in his/her native language. The language of the document itself should have no influence on the language of the subject heading language used for indexing nor on the language used for searching. (Practically speaking of course, there are restrictions, since there is a limit to the number of languages in which subject headings languages could be maintained and thus in which the user may search.) In the example below, we are concerned with three languages: German, French and English. If we can imagine a system in which there are equivalents among subject headings in these three languages, the following scenario may be envisaged: a German-speaking indexer will use German-language subject headings to index all the documents received, regardless of the language in which they are written. The user may search for these documents by entering subject headings in German, but also in French or in English, thanks to the equivalents that have been established, in French or in English without the necessity to know the other languages or the structure of the other SHLs. Ideally, this approach should not be confined to one database, but would allow the different databases to be brought together in virtual system: an English-speaking user in London should be able to search the database of the Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt using English-language headings, and retrieving documents which have been indexed using the German subject headings' list.

0.01816343 = product of:
  0.054490287 = sum of:
    0.054490287 = product of:
      0.10898057 = sum of:
        0.10898057 = weight(_text_:22 in 7383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10898057 = score(doc=7383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7383, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:46:30

0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 3473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=3473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3473, 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=3473)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

22 S

0.015893001 = product of:
  0.047679 = sum of:
    0.047679 = product of:
      0.095358 = sum of:
        0.095358 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095358 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2656, 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=2656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30.11.1995 20:53:22

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 6987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=6987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 6987, 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=6987)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the results of a project to develop conflation tools for searching databases of Latin text. Reports on the results of a questionnaire sent to 64 users of Latin text retrieval systems. Describes a Latin stemming algorithm that uses a simple longest match with some recoding but differs from most stemmers in its use of 2 separate suffix dictionaries for processing query and database words. Describes a retrieval system in which a user inputs the principal component of their search term, these components are stemmed and the resulting stems matched against the noun based and verb based stem dictionaries. Evaluates the system, describing its limitations, and a more complex system

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=367,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 367, 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=367)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The study of subject access to UK academic library catalogues was based on a questionnaires end out during Summer 1991. 86 out of a possible 110 questionnaires were returned. All universities and polytechniques now have OPACs which are progressing well towards comprehensive bibliographical coverage of their libraries' stocks. The MARC format is now widely used. Subject access strategies are usually based on either Library of Congress Subject Headings or inhouse indexing systems but almost half the OPACs studies have no separate subject searching option based on subject indexing is expensive and future subject indexing strategies are best based on pre-existing controlled vocabularies. Strategies authority control is essential. A limited range of software strategies is recommended including the need to limit search results

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=812,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 812, 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=812)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports a study of undergraduate students' use of computer-based information retrieval services in relation to their cognitive and learning styles. Includes a survey of staff at Sheffield University, UK on their use of computer databases and the extend to which undergraduates are made aware of these services. Results show that undergraduate use is low and varies greatly between students of differnt faculties. Student searching behaviour was found to be basic and their performance inadequate. Significant correlation's between cognitive and learning styles and search behaviour were found. Computer-assisted learning (CAL) packages were developed and customised for 3 departments. Guidelines were drawn up based on the project's findings for introducing a computerised information sources programme into the undergraduate curriculum and preparing CAL teaching packages on information skills

0.015656501 = product of:
  0.0469695 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 1787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=1787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 1787, 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=1787)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=2538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2538, 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=2538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of academic librarianship 22(1996) no.2, S.147 (A. Schultis)

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 1715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=1715,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1715, 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=1715)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Select newsletter 1998, no.22, S.8 (P. Robinson)

0.013622571 = product of:
  0.040867712 = sum of:
    0.040867712 = product of:
      0.081735425 = sum of:
        0.081735425 = weight(_text_:22 in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081735425 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 234, 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=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

22 S

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 940, 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=940)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of an investigation, undertaken at Sheffield University, Departmant of Information Studies, UK into the effects of postings information (the display on the screen of the number of references in the retrieved sets) on searching behaviour. Linked online searches were conducted, on the LISA database on CD-ROM, with and without postings information. Performance in terms of the number of relevant references, precision and recall was not significantly different whether postings information was available or not; but searches with postings information took more time and more sets were viewed than in searches without postings. Searchers thought that the lack of postings information had affected 90% of their searches. Proposes that training should place greater emphasis on the value of postings information at different stages of the search and should optimize the searching behaviour of those with different searching styles