Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.056357022 = product of:
  0.2817851 = sum of:
    0.2817851 = weight(_text_:line in 6204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2817851 = score(doc=6204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.9913358 = fieldWeight in 6204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6204)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.039850432 = product of:
  0.19925216 = sum of:
    0.19925216 = weight(_text_:line in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19925216 = score(doc=2494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.7009803 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An experiment was conducted using 3 data bases in library and information science - Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Information Science Abstracts and ERIC - to investigate some of the main factors affecting on-line searching: effectiveness of search vocabularies, combinations of fields searched, and overlaps among databases. Natural language, controlled vocabulary and a mixture of natural language and controlled terms were tested using different fields of bibliographic records. Also discusses a comparative evaluation of single and multi-data base searching, measuring the overlap among data bases and their influence upon on-line searching.

0.036604963 = product of:
  0.18302481 = sum of:
    0.18302481 = weight(_text_:line in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18302481 = score(doc=206,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.6438916 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We investigated the sources and effectiveness of search terms used during mediated on-line searching under real-life (as opposed to laboratory) circumstances. A stratified model of information retrieval (IR) interaction served as a framework for the analysis. For the analysis, we used the on-line transaction logs, videotapes, and transcribed dialogue of the presearch and on-line interaction between 40 users and 4 professional intermediaries. Each user provided one question and interacted with one of the four intermediaries. Searching was done using DIALOG. Five sources of search terms were identified: (1) the users' written question statements, (2) terms derived from users' domain knowledge during the interaction, (3) terms extracted from retrieved items as relevance feedback, (4) database thesaurus, and (5) terms derived by intermediaries during the interaction. Distribution, retrieval effectiveness, transition sequences, and correlation of search terms from different sources were investigated. Search terms from users' written question statements and term relevance feedback were the most productive sources of terms contributing to the retrieval of items judged relevant by users. Implications of the findings are discussed

0.036604963 = product of:
  0.18302481 = sum of:
    0.18302481 = weight(_text_:line in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18302481 = score(doc=4605,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.6438916 = fieldWeight in 4605, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4605)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study sought to investigate the effects of cognitive style (field dependent and field independent) and on-line database search experience (novice and experienced) on the WWW search performance of undergraduate college students (n=48). It also attempted to find user factors that could be used to predict search efficiency. search performance, the dependent variable was defined in 2 ways: (1) time required for retrieving a relevant information item, and (2) the number of nodes traversed for retrieving a relevant information item. the search tasks required were carried out on a University Web site, and included a factual task and a topical search task of interest to the participant. Results indicated that while cognitive style (FD/FI) significantly influenced the search performance of novice searchers, the influence was greatly reduced in those searchers who had on-line database search experience. Based on the findings, suggestions for possible changes to the design of the current Web interface and to user training programs are provided

0.03486913 = product of:
  0.17434564 = sum of:
    0.17434564 = weight(_text_:line in 3114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17434564 = score(doc=3114,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.6133578 = fieldWeight in 3114, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3114)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Addresses the problem of how potential users of CD-ROM data bases can objectively establish which version of the same data base is best suited for a specific situation. The problem was solved by applying the retrieval effectiveness of current on-line data base search systems as a standard measurement. 5 search queries from the medical sciences were presented by experienced users of MEDLINE. Search strategies were written for both DIALOG and DATA-STAR. Search results were compared to create a recall base from documents present in both on-line searches. This recall base was then used to establish the retrieval and precision of 4 CD-ROM data bases: MEDLINE, Compact Cambrdge MEDLINE, DIALOG OnDisc, Comprehensive MEDLINE/EBSCO

0.028178511 = product of:
  0.14089255 = sum of:
    0.14089255 = weight(_text_:line in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14089255 = score(doc=3566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4956679 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A retrieval experiment was conducted to compare on-line searching using terms opposed to citations. This is the first study in which a single data base was used to retrieve two equivalent sets for each query, one using terms found in the bibliographic record to achieve higher recall, and the other using documents. Reports on the use of a second citation searching strategy. Overall, by using both types of search keys, the total recall is increased.

0.028178511 = product of:
  0.14089255 = sum of:
    0.14089255 = weight(_text_:line in 1394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14089255 = score(doc=1394,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4956679 = fieldWeight in 1394, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1394)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library and information work worldwide 1998. Ed.: M.B. Line et al

0.021133883 = product of:
  0.10566941 = sum of:
    0.10566941 = weight(_text_:line in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10566941 = score(doc=4598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.37175092 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Searching for information on the WWW basically comes down to locating an appropriate Web site and to retrieving relevant information from that site. This study examined the effect of a user's WWW experience on both phases of the search process. 35 students from 2 schools for Dutch pre-university education were observed while performing 3 search tasks. The results indicate that subjects with WWW-experience are more proficient in locating Web sites than are novice WWW-users. The observed differences were ascribed to the experts' superior skills in operating Web search engines. However, on tasks that required subjects to locate information on specific Web sites, the performance of experienced and novice users was equivalent - a result that is in line with hypertext research. Based on these findings, implications for training and supporting students in searching for information on the WWW are identified. Finally, the role of the subjects' level of domain expertise is discussed and directions for future research are proposed

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, 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=262)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, 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=6418)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, 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=6438)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

11. 8.2001 16:22:19

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, 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=5089)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:43:54

0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 6936, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6936)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The distribution of bibliographic records in on-line bibliographic databases is examined using 14 different search topics. These topics were searched using the DIALOG database host, and using as many suitable databases as possible. The presence of duplicate records in the searches was taken into consideration in the analysis, and the problem with lexical ambiguity in at least one search topic is discussed. The study answers questions such as how many databases are needed in a multifile search for particular topics, and what coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases. The distribution of the percentages of records retrieved over a number of databases for 13 of the 14 search topics roughly fell into three groups: (1) high concentration of records in one database with about 80% coverage in five to eight databases; (2) moderate concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in seven to 10 databases; and (3) low concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in 16 to 19 databases. The study does conform with earlier results, but shows that the number of databases needed for searches with varying complexities of search strategies, is much more topic dependent than previous studies would indicate.

0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Lopez-Pujalte and Guerrero-Bote test a relevance feedback genetic algorithm while varying its order based fitness functions and generating a function based upon the Ide dec-hi method as a base line. Using the non-zero weighted term types assigned to the query, and to the initially retrieved set of documents, as genes, a chromosome of equal length is created for each. The algorithm is provided with the chromosomes for judged relevant documents, for judged irrelevant documents, and for the irrelevant documents with their terms negated. The algorithm uses random selection of all possible genes, but gives greater likelihood to those with higher fitness values. When the fittest chromosome of a previous population is eliminated it is restored while the least fittest of the new population is eliminated in its stead. A crossover probability of .8 and a mutation probability of .2 were used with 20 generations. Three fitness functions were utilized; the Horng and Yeh function which takes into account the position of relevant documents, and two new functions, one based on accumulating the cosine similarity for retrieved documents, the other on stored fixed-recall-interval precessions. The Cranfield collection was used with the first 15 documents retrieved from 33 queries chosen to have at least 3 relevant documents in the first 15 and at least 5 relevant documents not initially retrieved. Precision was calculated at fixed recall levels using the residual collection method which removes viewed documents. One of the three functions improved the original retrieval by127 percent, while the Ide dec-hi method provided a 120 percent improvement.

0.013734931 = product of:
  0.068674654 = sum of:
    0.068674654 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068674654 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27. 2.1999 20:55:22

0.013734931 = product of:
  0.068674654 = sum of:
    0.068674654 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068674654 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

27. 2.1999 20:59:22

0.013734931 = product of:
  0.068674654 = sum of:
    0.068674654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068674654 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.22-25

0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5002, 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=5002)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

19. 3.1996 11:22:12

0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, 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=6971)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 744, 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=744)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00