Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011329013 = product of:
  0.05664506 = sum of:
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 7701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=7701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

23. 1.1999 19:22:09

0.011329013 = product of:
  0.05664506 = sum of:
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2000 17:48:06

0.011329013 = product of:
  0.05664506 = sum of:
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

14. 6.2001 12:22:31

0.011329013 = product of:
  0.05664506 = sum of:
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 1169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=1169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9. 1.1996 10:22:31

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=27,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 1666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=1666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 1666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1666)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information research using keywords is largely ignored by readers but in medium sized libraries such as that of the City of Science and Industry (Paris), with a multimedia collection of some 200.000 documents, it is the most effective tool. The reader, however, needs guidance in using this technique, and in refining searches to reduce noise. Examples are given demonstrating how keyword searches can identify non-indexed material, documents in other languages, and collective authors

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 2049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=2049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 2049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2049)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Given the phenomena of growth and diversification which affect both text databases and their users, it is essential to reflect on the nature of textual information and its representation within the very particular framework of interactive retrieval systems. The latter aim to correlate two types of conceptual structures, that of the user and that of the text, by way of a third structure - the interface. A typology of levels, of representation is proposed (typographical, lexical, statistical, linguistic, semiotic, and pragmatic). These representations, obtained by means of a multiplicity of strategies (intra-sentence, intratextual, intertextual) applied to different units of information and interrelated, render the interaction between diverse users and the database more flexible and more adaptable

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 2876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=2876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 2876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2876)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Examines searching capabilities and search results relating to the same full text data base made available by: a host that offers a command language designed for searching bibliographic data bases and a host that provides search facilities that have been specially designed for full text retrieval. Moreover, the CD-ROM format of an encyclopedia is compared with the equivalent on-line version of the same work, Academic American Encyclopedia. Results reveal that it is easier to search on those systems that offer searching facilities which have been specially designed for full text retrieval.

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=5181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Examines how, for term based free text retrieval, Interactive Query Expansion (IQE) provides better retrieval performance tahn Automatic Query Expansion (AQE) but the performance of IQE depends on the strategy employed by the user to select expansion terms. The aim is to build an expert query expansion system using term selection rules based on expert users' strategies. It is expected that such a system will achieve better performance for novice or inexperienced users that either AQE or IQE. The procedure is to discover expert IQE users' term selection strategies through observation and interrogation, to construct a rule based query expansion (RQE) system based on these and to compare the resulting retrieval performance with that of comparable AQE and IQE systems

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=3566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=513)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Since most popular commercialized systems for full text retrieval are designed with full text scaning and Boolean logic query mode, these systems use an oversimplified relationship between the indexing form and the content of document. Reports the use of Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to develop a Cluster Indexing Model (CIM) based on a Vector Space Model (VSM) in orer to explore the index theory of cluster indexing for chinese full text documents. From a series of experiments, it was found that the indexing performance of CIM is better than traditional VSM, and has almost equivalent effectiveness of the authority control of index terms

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recently, a detailed evaluation of a large, operational full-text document retrieval system was reported in the literature. Values of precision and recall were estimated usind traditional statistical sampling methods and blind evaluation procedures. The results of this evaluation demonstrated that the system tested was retrieving less then 20% of the relevant documents when the searchers believed it was retrieving over 75% of the relevant documents. This evaluation is described including some data not reported in the original article. Also discussed are the implications which this study has for how the subjects of documents should be represented, as well as the importance of rigorous retrieval evaluations for the furtherhance of information retrieval research

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this article, the fourth in a series on microcomputer software for information storage and retrieval, test results of six indexing and full-text retrieval programs are presented and various properties and qualities of these programs are discussed. The common faeture of programs in these categories is that they are primarily meant to retrieve words (or combination of them) in large text files. To do this they either simply index existing text files in one or more formats (indexing programs), or they store and index them in their own database format (full-text retrieval programs). The programs reviewed in this issue are the indexing programs Ask-it, Texplore and ZYindex and the full-text retrieval programs KAware, textMaster and WordCruncher. All programs run under MS-DOS. In addition ZYindex has a Windows and a Unix version and TextMaster is also available for for Unix. For each of the six programs almost 100 facts and test results are tabulated. The programs are also discussed individually

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 7398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=7398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 7398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7398)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 5385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=5385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 5385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5385)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This project was designed to test the relative efficacy of index terms and full-text for the retrieval of documents in those MEDLINE journals for which full-text searching was also available. The full-text files used were MEDIS from Mead Data Central and CCML from BRS Information Technologies. One hundred clinical medical topics were searches in these two files as well as the MEDLINE file to accumulate the necessary data. It was found that full-text identified significantly more relevant articles than did the indexed file. Most relevant items missed in the full-text files, but identified in MEDLINE, were missed because the searcher failed to account for some aspect of natural language, used a logical or positional operator that was too restrictive, or included a concept which was implied, but not expressed in the natural language. Very few of the unique relevant full-text citations would have been retrievaed by title or abstract alone. Finally, as of July, 1990 the more current issue of a journal was just as likely to appear in MEDLINE as in one of the full-text files.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 4721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=4721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 4721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4721)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In order to compare the value of subject descriptors and title keywords as entries to subject searches, two studies were carried out. Both studies concentrated on monographs in the humanities and social sciences, held by the online public access catalogue of the National Library of the Netherlands. In the first study, a comparison was made by subject librarians between the subject descriptors and the title keywords of 475 records. They could express their opinion on a scale from 1 (descriptor is exactly or almost the same as word in title) to 7 (descriptor does not appear in title at all). It was concluded that 37 per cent of the records are considerably enhanced by a subject descriptor, and 49 per cent slightly or considerably enhanced. In the second study, subject librarians performed subject searches using title keywords and subject descriptors on the same topic. The relative recall amounted to 48 per cent and 86 per cent respectively. Failure analysis revealed the reasons why so many records that were found by subject descriptors were not found by title keywords. First, although completely meaningless titles hardly ever appear, the title of a publication does not always offer sufficient clues for title keyword searching. In those cases, descriptors may enhance the record of a publication. A second and even more important task of subject descriptors is controlling the vocabulary. Many relevant titles cannot be retrieved by title keyword searching because of the wide diversity of ways of expressing a topic. Descriptors take away the burden of vocabulary control from the user.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=3868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=4300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.