Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.037008584 = product of:
  0.11102575 = sum of:
    0.11102575 = weight(_text_:reference in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11102575 = score(doc=2602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.5393946 = fieldWeight in 2602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2602)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Internet reference services quarterly. 3(1998) no.2, S.75-81

0.030448686 = product of:
  0.091346055 = sum of:
    0.091346055 = product of:
      0.18269211 = sum of:
        0.18269211 = weight(_text_:database in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18269211 = score(doc=406,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.8932624 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.030448686 = product of:
  0.091346055 = sum of:
    0.091346055 = product of:
      0.18269211 = sum of:
        0.18269211 = weight(_text_:database in 576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18269211 = score(doc=576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.8932624 = fieldWeight in 576, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Database. 13(1990) August, S.78-80

0.024358949 = product of:
  0.073076844 = sum of:
    0.073076844 = product of:
      0.14615369 = sum of:
        0.14615369 = weight(_text_:database in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14615369 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.7146099 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Database. 3(1980) no.2, S.55-67

0.024358949 = product of:
  0.073076844 = sum of:
    0.073076844 = product of:
      0.14615369 = sum of:
        0.14615369 = weight(_text_:database in 2126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14615369 = score(doc=2126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.7146099 = fieldWeight in 2126, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Database. 17(1994) no.6, S.84-86

0.024358949 = product of:
  0.073076844 = sum of:
    0.073076844 = product of:
      0.14615369 = sum of:
        0.14615369 = weight(_text_:database in 2043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14615369 = score(doc=2043,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.7146099 = fieldWeight in 2043, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2043)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.018504292 = product of:
  0.055512875 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=2035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Die bibliothekarische Informationserschließung war unist bislang durch den OPAC geprägt, der im wesentlichen die Monographien und Zeitschriften einer Bibliothek erschließt. Es werden 2 neue Bereiche skizziert, die in Zukunft ebenfalls Teil der bibliothekarischen Informationserschließung sein können und werden: die Erschließung unselbständiger Literatur und der Einsatz automatisierter 'reference and information services'. Im ersten Fall ist die Entwicklung bereits weit vorangeschritten, Verbundsysteme und Library Suppliers bieten bereits Inhaltsdaten von Zeitschriften als Fremdleistung an. Im zweiten Fall ist die Entwicklung, vor allem im angloamerikanischen Raum, noch - trotz zahlreicher Projekte - in den Anfängen. Der Einsatz wissensbasierter Systeme in diesem Bereich macht die Aufgaben hier besonders komplex, biete zugleich aber hanz neue Lösungsmöglichkeiten an, wie am Beispiel einiger amerikanischer Projekte dokumentiert wird. Wesentlich ist, daß Informationserschließungssysteme, wie sie ansatzweise im Internet bereits eingesetzt werden, den gesamten bereich elektronischer wie herkömmlicher Information umfassen, um einen allgemeinen und umfassenden Einstieg für den Informationssuchenden zu bieten

0.018458538 = product of:
  0.05537561 = sum of:
    0.05537561 = product of:
      0.11075122 = sum of:
        0.11075122 = weight(_text_:database in 2368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11075122 = score(doc=2368,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.5415116 = fieldWeight in 2368, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

At Rotterdam Port Authority an information database has been created with approx. 100.000 full text documents online. Topic software has been used to identify word groups and refine search strategies to optimize precision and recall. The software guides users from selected terms to other relevant word combinations. Although the system would benefit from further refinement, users are generally satisfied. The database includes a number of foreign language documents but lacks a thesaurus of foreign terms

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Effective searching on full texts: 1. full-text-retrieval on the Harbour information database

0.018269213 = product of:
  0.054807637 = sum of:
    0.054807637 = product of:
      0.109615274 = sum of:
        0.109615274 = weight(_text_:database in 465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109615274 = score(doc=465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.53595746 = fieldWeight in 465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.017224379 = product of:
  0.051673137 = sum of:
    0.051673137 = product of:
      0.10334627 = sum of:
        0.10334627 = weight(_text_:database in 6509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10334627 = score(doc=6509,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.5053055 = fieldWeight in 6509, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A bilingual Welsh-English full text database is planned for Inspection Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools for Wales. Special requirements for free text retrieval in the Welsh language are identified, and practical solutions are proposed for problems arising from the use of standard text database products, some of which may also apply to other lesser-used languages

0.017224379 = product of:
  0.051673137 = sum of:
    0.051673137 = product of:
      0.10334627 = sum of:
        0.10334627 = weight(_text_:database in 6621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10334627 = score(doc=6621,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.5053055 = fieldWeight in 6621, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Tests the effectiveness of a thesaurus as a search-aid in free text searching of a full text database. A set of queries was searched against a large full text database of newspaper articles. The thesaurus contained equivalence, hierarchical and associative relationships. Each query was searched in five modes: basic search, synonym search, narrower term search, related term search, and union of all previous searches. The searches were analyzed in terms of relative recall and precision

0.017224379 = product of:
  0.051673137 = sum of:
    0.051673137 = product of:
      0.10334627 = sum of:
        0.10334627 = weight(_text_:database in 2054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10334627 = score(doc=2054,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.5053055 = fieldWeight in 2054, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Full text management which applied to document management tends to be centred on text storage and retrieval. Recent developments are concerned with integration with relational database management system products to deliver document management services offering both the flexibility of text retrieval and the ability to support process based funnctions. There has been a move towards client server architectures, more user friendly user interfaces and more flexible and easier to understand retrieval. Advocates caution in choosing tasks for full text methods. Identifies document management functions for which the combined use of database management systems or special purpose tools should be considered

0.015224343 = product of:
  0.045673028 = sum of:
    0.045673028 = product of:
      0.091346055 = sum of:
        0.091346055 = weight(_text_:database in 2329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091346055 = score(doc=2329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.4466312 = fieldWeight in 2329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.015224343 = product of:
  0.045673028 = sum of:
    0.045673028 = product of:
      0.091346055 = sum of:
        0.091346055 = weight(_text_:database in 4086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091346055 = score(doc=4086,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.4466312 = fieldWeight in 4086, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Database. 18(1995) no.6, S.83-85

0.015224343 = product of:
  0.045673028 = sum of:
    0.045673028 = product of:
      0.091346055 = sum of:
        0.091346055 = weight(_text_:database in 4213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091346055 = score(doc=4213,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.4466312 = fieldWeight in 4213, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Novice end users were given 2 hours of training in searching a full-text magazine database (Magazine ASAP(TM)) on DIALOG. Subjects searched during 3 to 4 sessions in the presence of a trained monitor who prompted them to think aloud throughout the sessions. qualitative analysis of the transcripts and transaction logs yielded empirical information on user variables (purpose, motivation, satisfaction), uses of the database, move types, and every question users asked during the searches. The spontaneous, naturalistic questions were categorized according to affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor speech acts. Results show that most of the searches were performed for the self and were work related. The most common use of the database was to retrieve full-text articles online and to download and print them out rather than read them on screen. The majority of searches were judged satisfactory. Innovative uses included browsing for background information and obtaining contextualized sentences for language teaching. Searchers made twice as many moves to limit sets as moves to expand sets. Affective questions outnumbered cognitive and sensorimotor questions by two to one. This preponderance of affective micro-information needs during searching might be addressed by new system functions

0.015224343 = product of:
  0.045673028 = sum of:
    0.045673028 = product of:
      0.091346055 = sum of:
        0.091346055 = weight(_text_:database in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091346055 = score(doc=4300,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.4466312 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0150713315 = product of:
  0.045213994 = sum of:
    0.045213994 = product of:
      0.09042799 = sum of:
        0.09042799 = weight(_text_:database in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09042799 = score(doc=1682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.44214234 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

At Rotterdam Ports Authority in the Netherlands the Habour information database includes a press cuttings service and various online databases. To enable research staff to have direct access to information the POINT (Point Information Net) was begun in 1993. Using Verity software POINT provides simultaneously full text searching on a range of databases. The software uses current Web indexing technqiues to overcome the problems of excessive recall and low precision. A key element is the system's ability to recognise word combinations

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Effective searching on full texts: 1. full-text-retrieval on the Harbour information database

0.0131846685 = product of:
  0.039554004 = sum of:
    0.039554004 = product of:
      0.07910801 = sum of:
        0.07910801 = weight(_text_:database in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07910801 = score(doc=4088,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.38679397 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

So far, methods for ellipsis and anaphor resolution have been developed and the effects of anaphor resolution have been analyzed in the context of statistical information retrieval of scientific abstracts. No significant improvements has been observed. Analyzes the effects of ellipsis and anaphor resolution on proximity searching in a full text database. Anaphora and ellipsis are classified on the basis of the type of their correlates / antecedents rather than, as traditional, on the basis of their own linguistic type. The classification differentiates proper names and common nouns of basic words, compound words, and phrases. The study was carried out in a newspaper article database containing 55.000 full text articles. A set of 154 keyword pairs in different categories was created. Human resolution of keyword ellipsis and anaphora was performed to identify sentences and paragraphs which would match proximity searches after resolution. Findings indicate that ellipsis and anaphor resolution is most relevant for proper name phrases and only marginal in the other keyword categories. Therefore the recall effect of restricted resolution of proper name phrases only was analyzed for keyword pairs containing at least 1 proper name phrase. Findings indicate a recall increase of 38.2% in sentence searches, and 28.8% in paragraph searches when proper name ellipsis were resolved. The recall increase was 17.6% sentence searches, and 19.8% in paragraph searches when proper name anaphora were resolved. Some simple and computationally justifiable resolution method might be developed only for proper name phrases to support keyword based full text information retrieval. Discusses elements of such a method

0.0131846685 = product of:
  0.039554004 = sum of:
    0.039554004 = product of:
      0.07910801 = sum of:
        0.07910801 = weight(_text_:database in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07910801 = score(doc=3868,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.38679397 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.012918284 = product of:
  0.03875485 = sum of:
    0.03875485 = product of:
      0.0775097 = sum of:
        0.0775097 = weight(_text_:database in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0775097 = score(doc=27,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.37897915 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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