Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0062859626 = product of:
  0.044001736 = sum of:
    0.044001736 = product of:
      0.08800347 = sum of:
        0.08800347 = weight(_text_:design in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08800347 = score(doc=5099,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.57561016 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Explores the potential of text analysis as a tool in full text search and design improvement. Reports on a trial analysis performed in the domain of family history. The findings offered insights into possible gains and losses in using one search or design strategy versus another and strong evidence was provided to the potential of text analysis. Makes search and design recommendation

0.0044909082 = product of:
  0.031436358 = sum of:
    0.031436358 = product of:
      0.062872715 = sum of:
        0.062872715 = weight(_text_:design in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062872715 = score(doc=3566,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.41123575 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the introduction of hypermedia in information delivery and its advantages. Describes the special features in the design of full text databases and steps in developing in-house hypermedia databases. It may not be the job of the library professionals to design and develop the hypermedia system for information retrieval, but their ideas and experience will play an important role

0.003207792 = product of:
  0.022454543 = sum of:
    0.022454543 = product of:
      0.044909086 = sum of:
        0.044909086 = weight(_text_:design in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044909086 = score(doc=3868,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.29373983 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This paper reports on an analysis of the loss levels that would result if a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI), were missing the subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by its professional indexers, employing the methodology developed by Gross and Taylor (2005), and later by Gross et al. (2015). The results indicate that AEI users would lose a similar proportion of hits per query to that experienced by library catalog users: on average, 27% of the resources found by a sample of keyword queries on the AEI database would not have been found without the subject indexing, based on the Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors (ATED). The paper also discusses the methodological limitations of these studies, pointing out that real-life users might still find some of the resources missed by a particular query through follow-up searches, while additional resources might also be found through iterative searching on the subject vocabulary. The paper goes on to describe a new research design, based on a before - and - after experiment, which addresses some of these limitations. It is argued that this alternative design will provide a more realistic picture of the value that professionally assigned subject indexing and controlled subject vocabularies can add to literature searching of a more scholarly and thorough kind.

0.003148151 = product of:
  0.022037057 = sum of:
    0.022037057 = product of:
      0.044074114 = sum of:
        0.044074114 = weight(_text_:22 in 7701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044074114 = score(doc=7701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7701, 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=7701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

23. 1.1999 19:22:09

0.003148151 = product of:
  0.022037057 = sum of:
    0.022037057 = product of:
      0.044074114 = sum of:
        0.044074114 = weight(_text_:22 in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044074114 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4919, 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=4919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 7.2000 17:48:06

0.003148151 = product of:
  0.022037057 = sum of:
    0.022037057 = product of:
      0.044074114 = sum of:
        0.044074114 = weight(_text_:22 in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044074114 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5937, 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=5937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

14. 6.2001 12:22:31

0.003148151 = product of:
  0.022037057 = sum of:
    0.022037057 = product of:
      0.044074114 = sum of:
        0.044074114 = weight(_text_:22 in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044074114 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1169, 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=1169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

c't. 2002, H.22, S.190-197

0.0023611132 = product of:
  0.016527792 = sum of:
    0.016527792 = product of:
      0.033055585 = sum of:
        0.033055585 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033055585 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

9. 1.1996 10:22:31

0.0022682515 = product of:
  0.01587776 = sum of:
    0.01587776 = product of:
      0.03175552 = sum of:
        0.03175552 = weight(_text_:design in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175552 = score(doc=4300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This article reports on an investigation of the search value that subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by professional indexers add to a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI). First, a similar methodology to that developed by Gross et al. (2015) was applied, with keyword searches representing a range of educational topics run on the AEI database with and without its subject indexing. The results indicated that AEI users would also lose, on average, about a quarter of hits per query. Second, an alternative research design was applied in which an experienced literature searcher was asked to find resources on a set of educational topics on an AEI database stripped of its subject indexing and then asked to search for additional resources on the same topics after the subject indexing had been reinserted. In this study, the proportion of additional resources that would have been lost had it not been for the subject indexing was again found to be about a quarter of the total resources found for each topic, on average.