Search (173 results, page 1 of 9)

0.07622548 = product of:
  0.11433822 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
    0.027057027 = product of:
      0.054114055 = sum of:
        0.054114055 = weight(_text_:search in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054114055 = score(doc=3891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Research and development of search engines and other information retrieval (IR) systems proceeds by a cycle of design, implementation, and experimentation, with the results of each experiment influencing design decisions in the next iteration of the cycle. Batch experiments on test collections help ensure that this process goes as smoothly and as quickly as possible. A test collection comprises a collection of documents, a set of information needs, and judgments of the relevance of documents to those needs.

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.06612858 = product of:
  0.19838575 = sum of:
    0.19838575 = sum of:
      0.15718713 = weight(_text_:search in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15718713 = score(doc=1757,freq=30.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.89236253 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
            5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
              30.0 = termFreq=30.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
      0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041198608 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considers intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency in the selection of search terms. Based on an empirical study where 22 searchers from 4 different types of search environments analyzed altogether 12 search requests of 4 different types in 2 separate test situations between which 2 months elapsed. Statistically very significant differences in consistency were found according to the types of search environments and search requests. Consistency was also considered according to the extent of the scope of search concept. At level I search terms were compared character by character. At level II different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a rather simple evaluation of linguistic expressions. At level III, in addition to level II, the hierarchical approach of the search request was also controlled. At level IV different search terms were accepted as the same search concept with a broad interpretation of the search concept. Both intersearcher and intrasearcher consistency grew most immediately after a rather simple evaluation of linguistic impressions

0.06481525 = product of:
  0.09722287 = sum of:
    0.08538542 = weight(_text_:book in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08538542 = score(doc=5082,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.38168296 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.01183745 = product of:
      0.0236749 = sum of:
        0.0236749 = weight(_text_:search in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0236749 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.1344041 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Text retrieval technology targets a problem that is all too familiar: finding relevant information in large stores of electronic documents. The problem is an old one, with the first research conference devoted to the subject held in 1958 [11]. Since then the problem has continued to grow as more information is created in electronic form and more people gain electronic access. The advent of the World Wide Web, where anyone can publish so everyone must search, is a graphic illustration of the need for effective retrieval technology. The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a workshop series designed to build the infrastructure necessary for the large-scale evaluation of text retrieval technology, thereby accelerating its transfer into the commercial sector. The series is sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Defense. At the time of this writing, there have been twelve TREC workshops and preparations for the thirteenth workshop are under way. Participants in the workshops have been drawn from the academic, commercial, and government sectors, and have included representatives from more than twenty different countries. These collective efforts have accomplished a great deal: a variety of large test collections have been built for both traditional ad hoc retrieval and related tasks such as cross-language retrieval, speech retrieval, and question answering; retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled; and many commercial retrieval systems now contain technology first developed in TREC.
This book chronicles the evolution of retrieval systems over the course of TREC. To be sure, there has already been a wealth of information written about TREC. Each conference has produced a proceedings containing general overviews of the various tasks, papers written by the individual participants, and evaluation results.1 Reports on expanded versions of TREC experiments frequently appear in the wider information retrieval literature. There also have been special issues of journals devoted to particular TRECs [3; 13] and particular TREC tasks [6; 4]. No single volume could hope to be a comprehensive record of all TREC-related research. Instead, this book looks to distill the overabundance of detail into a manageable whole that summarizes the main lessons learned from TREC. The book consists of three main parts. The first part contains introductory and descriptive chapters on TREC's history, the major products of TREC (the test collections), and the retrieval evaluation methodology. Part II includes chapters describing the major TREC ''tracks,'' evaluations of special subtopics such as cross-language retrieval and question answering. Part III contains contributions from research groups that have participated in TREC. The epilogue to the book is written by Karen Sparck Jones, who reflects on the impact TREC has had on the information retrieval field. The structure of this introductory chapter is similar to that of the book as a whole. The chapter begins with a short history of TREC; expanded descriptions of specific aspects of the history are included in subsequent chapters to make those chapters self-contained. Section 1.2 describes TREC's track structure, which has been responsible for the growth of TREC and allows TREC to adapt to changing needs. The final section lists both the major accomplishments of TREC and some remaining challenges.

0.0625225 = product of:
  0.09378374 = sum of:
    0.08182611 = weight(_text_:book in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08182611 = score(doc=636,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.36577243 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.0119576305 = product of:
      0.023915261 = sum of:
        0.023915261 = weight(_text_:search in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023915261 = score(doc=636,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.13576864 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), a yearly workshop hosted by the US government's National Institute of Standards and Technology, provides the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. With the goal of accelerating research in this area, TREC created the first large test collections of full-text documents and standardized retrieval evaluation. The impact has been significant; since TREC's beginning in 1992, retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled. TREC has built a variety of large test collections, including collections for such specialized retrieval tasks as cross-language retrieval and retrieval of speech. Moreover, TREC has accelerated the transfer of research ideas into commercial systems, as demonstrated in the number of retrieval techniques developed in TREC that are now used in Web search engines. This book provides a comprehensive review of TREC research, summarizing the variety of TREC results, documenting the best practices in experimental information retrieval, and suggesting areas for further research. The first part of the book describes TREC's history, test collections, and retrieval methodology. Next, the book provides "track" reports -- describing the evaluations of specific tasks, including routing and filtering, interactive retrieval, and retrieving noisy text. The final part of the book offers perspectives on TREC from such participants as Microsoft Research, University of Massachusetts, Cornell University, University of Waterloo, City University of New York, and IBM. The book will be of interest to researchers in information retrieval and related technologies, including natural language processing.

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: 1. The Text REtrieval Conference - Ellen M. Voorhees and Donna K. Harman 2. The TREC Test Collections - Donna K. Harman 3. Retrieval System Evaluation - Chris Buckley and Ellen M. Voorhees 4. The TREC Ad Hoc Experiments - Donna K. Harman 5. Routing and Filtering - Stephen Robertson and Jamie Callan 6. The TREC Interactive Tracks: Putting the User into Search - Susan T. Dumais and Nicholas J. Belkin 7. Beyond English - Donna K. Harman 8. Retrieving Noisy Text - Ellen M. Voorhees and John S. Garofolo 9.The Very Large Collection and Web Tracks - David Hawking and Nick Craswell 10. Question Answering in TREC - Ellen M. Voorhees 11. The University of Massachusetts and a Dozen TRECs - James Allan, W. Bruce Croft and Jamie Callan 12. How Okapi Came to TREC - Stephen Robertson 13. The SMART Project at TREC - Chris Buckley 14. Ten Years of Ad Hoc Retrieval at TREC Using PIRCS - Kui-Lam Kwok 15. MultiText Experiments for TREC - Gordon V. Cormack, Charles L. A. Clarke, Christopher R. Palmer and Thomas R. Lynam 16. A Language-Modeling Approach to TREC - Djoerd Hiemstra and Wessel Kraaij 17. BM Research Activities at TREC - Eric W. Brown, David Carmel, Martin Franz, Abraham Ittycheriah, Tapas Kanungo, Yoelle Maarek, J. Scott McCarley, Robert L. Mack, John M. Prager, John R. Smith, Aya Soffer, Jason Y. Zien and Alan D. Marwick Epilogue: Metareflections on TREC - Karen Sparck Jones

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.6, S.910-911 (J.L. Vicedo u. J. Gomez): "The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a yearly workshop hosted by the U.S. government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that fosters and supports research in information retrieval as well as speeding the transfer of technology between research labs and industry. Since 1992, TREC has provided the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluations of different text retrieval methodologies. TREC impact has been very important and its success has been mainly supported by its continuous adaptation to the emerging information retrieval needs. Not in vain, TREC has built evaluation benchmarks for more than 20 different retrieval problems such as Web retrieval, speech retrieval, or question-answering. The large and intense trajectory of annual TREC conferences has resulted in an immense bulk of documents reflecting the different eval uation and research efforts developed. This situation makes it difficult sometimes to observe clearly how research in information retrieval (IR) has evolved over the course of TREC. TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval succeeds in organizing and condensing all this research into a manageable volume that describes TREC history and summarizes the main lessons learned. The book is organized into three parts. The first part is devoted to the description of TREC's origin and history, the test collections, and the evaluation methodology developed. The second part describes a selection of the major evaluation exercises (tracks), and the third part contains contributions from research groups that had a large and remarkable participation in TREC. Finally, Karen Spark Jones, one of the main promoters of research in IR, closes the book with an epilogue that analyzes the impact of TREC on this research field.
... TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval is a reliable and comprehensive review of the TREC program and has been adopted by NIST as the official history of TREC (see http://trec.nist.gov). We were favorably surprised by the book. Well structured and written, chapters are self-contained and the existence of references to specialized and more detailed publications is continuous, which makes it easier to expand into the different aspects analyzed in the text. This book succeeds in compiling TREC evolution from its inception in 1992 to 2003 in an adequate and manageable volume. Thanks to the impressive effort performed by the authors and their experience in the field, it can satiate the interests of a great variety of readers. While expert researchers in the IR field and IR-related industrial companies can use it as a reference manual, it seems especially useful for students and non-expert readers willing to approach this research area. Like NIST, we would recommend this reading to anyone who may be interested in textual information retrieval."

0.045265343 = product of:
  0.13579603 = sum of:
    0.13579603 = sum of:
      0.10146385 = weight(_text_:search in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10146385 = score(doc=1786,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.5760175 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.034332175 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034332175 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - One core element of interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments is the assignment of search tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical review of current practice in developing those search tasks to test, observe or control task complexity and difficulty. Design/methodology/approach - Over 100 prior studies of IIR were examined in terms of how each defined task complexity and/or difficulty (or related concepts) and subsequently interpreted those concepts in the development of the assigned search tasks. Findings - Search task complexity is found to include three dimensions: multiplicity of subtasks or steps, multiplicity of facets, and indeterminability. Search task difficulty is based on an interaction between the search task and the attributes of the searcher or the attributes of the search situation. The paper highlights the anomalies in our use of these two concepts, concluding with suggestions for future methodological research related to search task complexity and difficulty. Originality/value - By analyzing and synthesizing current practices, this paper provides guidance for future experiments in IIR that involve these two constructs.

Date

6. 4.2015 19:31:22

0.0436406 = product of:
  0.1309218 = sum of:
    0.1309218 = weight(_text_:book in 2965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1309218 = score(doc=2965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.58523595 = fieldWeight in 2965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2965)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0433591 = product of:
  0.1300773 = sum of:
    0.1300773 = sum of:
      0.082012266 = weight(_text_:search in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.082012266 = score(doc=5598,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
      0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 5598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04806504 = score(doc=5598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5598)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research shows that 65-80% of subject search terms fail to match the appropriate subject heading and one third to one half of subject searches result in no references being retrieved. Examines the subject search terms geberated by 82 school and college students in Princeton, NJ, evaluated the match between the named terms and the expected subject headings, proposes an explanation for match failures in relation to 3 invariant properties common to all search terms: concreteness, complexity, and syndeticity. Suggests that match failure is a consequence of developmental naming patterns and that these patterns can be overcome through the use of metacognitive naming skills

Date

2.11.1996 13:08:22

0.036348514 = product of:
  0.109045535 = sum of:
    0.109045535 = sum of:
      0.054114055 = weight(_text_:search in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054114055 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.30720934 = fieldWeight in 3572, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3572)
      0.054931477 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054931477 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes of 3 searches on the topic of virtual communities done on the WWW using HotBot and traditional databases using LEXIS-NEXIS and ABI/Inform. Concludes that the WWW is a good starting place for a broad concept search but the traditional services are better for more precise topics

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28

0.03180495 = product of:
  0.09541484 = sum of:
    0.09541484 = sum of:
      0.0473498 = weight(_text_:search in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0473498 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 2718, 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=2718)
      0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04806504 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A study of the number of irrelevant documents retrieved in a co-ordinate indexing system that does not employ eitherr roles or links. These tests were based on one hundred actual inquiries received in the library and therefore an evaluation of recall efficiency is not included. Over half the enquiries produced no noise, but the mean average percentage niose figure was approximately 33 per cent based on a total average retireval figure of eighteen documents per search. Details of the size of the indexed collection, methods of indexing, and an analysis of the reasons for the retrieval of irrelevant documents are discussed, thereby providing information officers who are thinking of installing such a system with some evidence on which to base a decision as to whether or not to utilize these devices

Source

Journal of documentation. 22(1966), S.203-209

0.03180495 = product of:
  0.09541484 = sum of:
    0.09541484 = sum of:
      0.0473498 = weight(_text_:search in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0473498 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 3368, 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=3368)
      0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04806504 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The performance of an information retrieval or text and media filtering system may be determined through analytic methods as well as by traditional simulation or experimental methods. These analytic methods can provide precise statements about expected performance. They can thus determine which of 2 similarly performing systems is superior. For both a single query terms and for a multiple query term retrieval model, a model for comparing the performance of different probabilistic retrieval methods is developed. This method may be used in computing the average search length for a query, given only knowledge of database parameter values. Describes predictive models for inverse document frequency, binary independence, and relevance feedback based retrieval and filtering. Simulation illustrate how the single term model performs and sample performance predictions are given for single term and multiple term problems

Date

22. 2.1996 13:14:10

0.03180495 = product of:
  0.09541484 = sum of:
    0.09541484 = sum of:
      0.0473498 = weight(_text_:search in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0473498 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 5001, 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=5001)
      0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04806504 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.030858565 = product of:
  0.09257569 = sum of:
    0.09257569 = weight(_text_:book in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09257569 = score(doc=386,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.41382432 = fieldWeight in 386, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=386)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Using subject headings for Online Retrieval is an indispensable tool for online system desingners who are developing new systems or refining exicting ones. The book describes subject analysis and subject searching in online catalogs, including the limitations of retrieval, and demonstrates how such limitations can be overcome through system design and programming. The book describes the Library of Congress Subject headings system and system characteristics, shows how information is stored in machine readable files, and offers examples of and recommendations for successful methods. Tables are included to support these recommendations, and diagrams, graphs, and bar charts are used to provide results of data analyses.

0.029093731 = product of:
  0.08728119 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3801)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.029093731 = product of:
  0.08728119 = sum of:
    0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08728119 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

0.027261382 = product of:
  0.081784144 = sum of:
    0.081784144 = sum of:
      0.04058554 = weight(_text_:search in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04058554 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.230407 = fieldWeight in 4341, 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=4341)
      0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 4341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041198608 = score(doc=4341,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4341, 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=4341)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Undergraduates were tested to establish how they searched databases, the effectiveness of their searches and their satisfaction with them. The students' cognitive and learning styles were determined by the Lancaster Approaches to Studying Inventory and Riding's Cognitive Styles Analysis tests. There were significant differences in the searching behaviour and the effectiveness of the searches carried out by students with different learning and cognitive styles. Computer-assisted learning (CAL) packages were developed for three departments. The effectiveness of the packages were evaluated. Significant differences were found in the ways students with different learning styles used the packages. Based on the experience gained, guidelines for the teaching of information skills and the production and use of packages were prepared. About 2/3 of the searches had serious weaknesses, indicating a need for effective training. It appears that choice of searching strategies, search effectiveness and use of CAL packages are all affected by the cognitive and learning styles of the searcher. Therefore, students should be made aware of their own styles and, if appropriate, how to adopt more effective strategies

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.2, S.79-92

0.02550961 = product of:
  0.07652883 = sum of:
    0.07652883 = product of:
      0.15305766 = sum of:
        0.15305766 = weight(_text_:search in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15305766 = score(doc=43,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679956 = queryNorm
            0.86891925 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We present the TREC Open Search track, which represents a new evaluation paradigm for information retrieval. It offers the possibility for researchers to evaluate their approaches in a live setting, with real, unsuspecting users of an existing search engine. The first edition of the track focuses on the academic search domain and features the ad-hoc scientific literature search task. We report on experiments with three different academic search engines: Cite-SeerX, SSOAR, and Microsoft Academic Search.

0.025457015 = product of:
  0.076371044 = sum of:
    0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076371044 = score(doc=2065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study, the fourth and last of a series designed to produce new information to improve retrievability of books in libraries, explores the effectiveness of retrieving a known-item book using words from titles only. From daily printouts of circulation records at the Walter Royal Davis Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 749 titles were taken and then searched an the 4-million entry catalog at the library of the University of Michigan. The principal finding was that searches produced titles having personal authors 81.4% of the time and anonymous titles 91.5% of the time; these figures are 15 and 5%, respectively, lower than the lowest findings presented in the previous three articles of this series (Kilgour, 1995; 1997; 2001).

0.025457015 = product of:
  0.076371044 = sum of:
    0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 1174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076371044 = score(doc=1174,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050679956 = queryNorm
        0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 1174, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1174)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The test ran between Nov 95-Aug 96 in Cologne Fachhochschule fur Bibliothekswesen (College of Librarianship).The test basis was a database of 190,000 book titles published between 1990-95. MILOS II mechanized indexing methods proved helpful in avoiding or reducing numbers of unsatisfied/no result retrieval searches. Retrieval from mechanised indexing is 3 times more successful than from title keyword data. MILOS II also used a standardized semantic vocabulary. Mechanised indexing demands high quality software and output data

0.022717819 = product of:
  0.068153456 = sum of:
    0.068153456 = sum of:
      0.033821285 = weight(_text_:search in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033821285 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.034332175 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034332175 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.022717819 = product of:
  0.068153456 = sum of:
    0.068153456 = sum of:
      0.033821285 = weight(_text_:search in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033821285 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
      0.034332175 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034332175 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679956 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process. Findings - This study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment. Research limitations/implications - Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments. Practical implications - If multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short-term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions. Originality/value - This study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:29:22