Search (82 results, page 1 of 5)

0.1019371 = product of:
  0.2038742 = sum of:
    0.2038742 = sum of:
      0.14906852 = weight(_text_:light in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14906852 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.51047 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
      0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054805685 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050563898 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The current subject gateways have evolved over time when the discipline of Internet resource discovery was in its infancy. This is reflected by the lack of well-established, light-weight, deployable, easy-to-use, standards for metadata and information retrieval. We provide an introduction to the architecture, standards and software solutions in use by subject gateways, and to the issues that must be addressed to support future subject gateways

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.09316782 = product of:
  0.18633564 = sum of:
    0.18633564 = product of:
      0.37267128 = sum of:
        0.37267128 = weight(_text_:light in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37267128 = score(doc=2608,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            1.2761749 = fieldWeight in 2608, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Northern Light Technology have demonstrated Industry Search, an enhancement to its Northern Light service providing full text coverage of company and industry news, management practices and market research information via the WWW

Object

Northern Light

0.09316782 = product of:
  0.18633564 = sum of:
    0.18633564 = product of:
      0.37267128 = sum of:
        0.37267128 = weight(_text_:light in 3277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37267128 = score(doc=3277,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            1.2761749 = fieldWeight in 3277, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Northern Light, MA, has introduced 3 new advanced search features to its Northern Light WWW online search engine: Publication Search; PowerSearch; and support for advanced query syntax

Object

Northern Light

0.07453426 = product of:
  0.14906852 = sum of:
    0.14906852 = product of:
      0.29813704 = sum of:
        0.29813704 = weight(_text_:light in 3274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29813704 = score(doc=3274,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            1.02094 = fieldWeight in 3274, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3274)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Northern Light Search from Northern Light technology Internet search engine searches both WWW pages and full-text-articles and sorts its results into folders based on keywords, source and other criteria. Prices for articles range from free to $14 an article, full citations are free. Details its scope, search syntax, describes its use of custom folders, record structure, and advanced searching

Object

Northern Light

0.0658796 = product of:
  0.1317592 = sum of:
    0.1317592 = product of:
      0.2635184 = sum of:
        0.2635184 = weight(_text_:light in 942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2635184 = score(doc=942,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.90239197 = fieldWeight in 942, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explains how to use the search engine Northern Light, the first to offer simultaneous access to a 'special collection' of 1.800 'quality sources' and the Internet and which collects results and ranks for relevance. Describes the purchasing procedure and pricing

Object

Northern Light

0.06521748 = product of:
  0.13043496 = sum of:
    0.13043496 = product of:
      0.26086992 = sum of:
        0.26086992 = weight(_text_:light in 2890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26086992 = score(doc=2890,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.89332247 = fieldWeight in 2890, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A new Web based service, Northern Light, aims to serve large populations of users, by delivering high-quality content on both general and narrow topics. Analyzes the trends that have led to an explosion of access to information on the Internet, but also to difficulties in finding relevant, quality information. Describes the Northern Light search engine which improves naive user searching through its innovative refinement scheme Custom Search folders, but also offers a more sophisticated search syntax for finer control. Searching is free, as is access to many Web Sies, but access to full text articles from a special collection of journals is fee-based. Advocates this free saerch / pay for content payment model for the wider information industry

Object

Northern Light

0.06454857 = product of:
  0.12909713 = sum of:
    0.12909713 = product of:
      0.25819427 = sum of:
        0.25819427 = weight(_text_:light in 2607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25819427 = score(doc=2607,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.88416 = fieldWeight in 2607, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Northern Light is an innovative service which creatively blends Web and proprietary online searching. It simultaneously searches the Web and a large, multidisciplinary, full text database, using a relevance system with some clever tweaks. Its risky pricing scheme depends upon users' willingness to pay for proprietary content

Object

Northern Light

0.06454857 = product of:
  0.12909713 = sum of:
    0.12909713 = product of:
      0.25819427 = sum of:
        0.25819427 = weight(_text_:light in 3310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25819427 = score(doc=3310,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.88416 = fieldWeight in 3310, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Northern Light is part WWW search engine and part full text database. The latter is called Special Collection and consists of fulltext articles from 1.800 journals, newswires and other resources. Searching, bibliographic information and summaries are free but with prices per article ranging from $1 to $4 of a monthly subscription for 50 documents from a 880 journal subset. Highlights weaknesses with the software

Object

Northern Light

0.040154435 = product of:
  0.08030887 = sum of:
    0.08030887 = product of:
      0.24092661 = sum of:
        0.24092661 = weight(_text_:3a in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24092661 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42868128 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fdelab.csd.auth.gr%2F~dimitris%2Fcourses%2Fir_spring06%2Fpage_rank_computing%2Fp527-li.pdf. Vgl. auch: http://www2002.org/CDROM/refereed/643/.

0.03260874 = product of:
  0.06521748 = sum of:
    0.06521748 = product of:
      0.13043496 = sum of:
        0.13043496 = weight(_text_:light in 5215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13043496 = score(doc=5215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.44666123 = fieldWeight in 5215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Compares the features and performance of 6 Web search engines: AltaVista, Excite, HotBot, Infoseek, Lycos and Northern Light; 2 metasearch engines: Savvy Search and Inference Find; and the question answering system Ask Jeeves. Results of a standard set of 10 questions posed to each service show little overlap between search engines, so it is important to use more than one Web search engine if a comprehensive search is needed. Discusses technology trends and makes recommendations for Web searching. More and better information has become available on the Web in 1998 and each major search engine is developing a niche market and its own personality

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 5216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=5216,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 5216, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5216)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on the Infonortics '98 conference on 'Search Engines and Beyond', held at Boston, Massachusetts, 1-2 April 1998. Presenters included some of the leading developers of search engine technology as well as researchers in the field of information retrieval (IR). Summarizes papers on the following topics: the state of IR today; statistical approaches to IR; the history of enhanced statistical engines and commercial online services; new features in Web search engines; Inktomi full text index services; distributed searching; natural language processing and linguistics-based applications; Northern Light service features; challenges to IR including knowledge management systems using Adaptive Probabilistic Concept Modelling; Verity's Knowledge Organizer product; cross-language retrieval; image analysis products and video processing software; trends in knowledge extraction tools; the state of the information industry; the expectations of end users; and the development of tests for measuring search engine technology

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 5661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=5661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 5661, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a series of capsule reviews of 20 search engines Sirapyan gives a good overview of the state of Internet search tools. She starts out with a clear discussion of the types of search tools available, the availability of advanced features such as Boolean queries and differences between directories, regular search engines and metasearch engines. It is unclear from the article whether the author and other testers used the same searches across all of the 20 tools but each review clearly outlines perceived strengths and weaknesses, gives tips on the advanced features, if any, of the search tool in question and suggests the types of searches that are most successful. The tools which receive top honors are Google, Northern Light, HotBot and Oingo. Finally, there is an extra sidebar the discusses meta and specialized search tools such as Infozoid and FirstGov. I can't help thinking that the usefulness of this article is related to the fact that Sirapyan is PC Magazine's librarian and goes into greater depth on those features that are of interest to information professionals

0.027950348 = product of:
  0.055900697 = sum of:
    0.055900697 = product of:
      0.11180139 = sum of:
        0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11180139 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of a scientifically sounded approach to search engine evaluation. Nowadays there is a flourishing literature which describes various attempts at conducting such evaluation by following all sort of approaches, but very often only the final results are published with little, if any, information about the methodology and the procedures adopted. These various experiments have been critically investigated and catalogued according to their scientific foundation by Bell [1] in the attempt to provide a valuable framework for future studies in this area. This paper reconsiders some of Bell's ideas in the light of the crisis of classic evaluation techniques for information retrieval and tries to envisage some form of collaboration between the IR and web communities in order to design a better and more consistent platform for the evaluation of tools for interactive information retrieval.

0.02422092 = product of:
  0.04844184 = sum of:
    0.04844184 = product of:
      0.09688368 = sum of:
        0.09688368 = weight(_text_:22 in 4872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09688368 = score(doc=4872,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4872, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:40:22

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 3175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=3175,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3175, 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=3175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Computers in libraries. 19(1999) no.5, S.22-28

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, 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=6021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Ariadne. 1999, no.22

0.023977486 = product of:
  0.047954973 = sum of:
    0.047954973 = product of:
      0.095909946 = sum of:
        0.095909946 = weight(_text_:22 in 844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095909946 = score(doc=844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 844, 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=844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 6.2008 16:22:20

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 6544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=6544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 6544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study compared the search features and retrieval performance of Yahooligans!, Ask Jeeves for Kids, and Super Snooper on identical searches. This extended the earlier research conducted by Bilal (1999), which examined the cognitive, affective, and physical behaviors of twenty-two 7th grade science students' use of Yahooligans! search engine. The three types of searches the students formulated in Yahooligans! on an imposed fact-driven query were here conducted in Ask Jeeves for Kids and Super Snooper. The retrieval performance criteria of the three engines included: (1) retrieval output, (2) relevance, (3) overlap in results, and (4) redundancy. A matrix of features (e.g., database coverage, search interface, search capabilities, retrieval interface, filtering, feedback, online help, FAQs, and advertisements) was developed to compare the engines. The performance of the natural language capability embedded in Ask Jeeves for Kids was evaluated by comparing the results retrieved directly from Yahooligans! to those Ask Jeeves for Kids returned from Yahooligans! on identical searches.The. results shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of each engine and appropriateness to specific types of queries. Yahooligans! was the most effective on keyword searching. Super Snooper returned the highest number of hits but with zero relevance on all types of searches. Ask Jeeves for Kids was successful only on one keyword search and failed both the natural language phrase and multiple keyword. Implications are made for improving the engines' design, retrieval performance, and search features, as well as for user instruction

0.023291955 = product of:
  0.04658391 = sum of:
    0.04658391 = product of:
      0.09316782 = sum of:
        0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 5204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09316782 = score(doc=5204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050563898 = queryNorm
            0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 5204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Seven hundred natural language questions from TREC-8 and TREC-9 were sent by Radev, Libner, and Fan to each of nine web search engines. The top 40 sites returned by each system were stored for evaluation of their productivity of correct answers. Each question per engine was scored as the sum of the reciprocal ranks of identified correct answers. The large number of zero scores gave a positive skew violating the normality assumption for ANOVA, so values were transformed to zero for no hit and one for one or more hits. The non-zero values were then square-root transformed to remove the remaining positive skew. Interactions were observed between search engine and answer type (name, place, date, et cetera), search engine and number of proper nouns in the query, search engine and the need for time limitation, and search engine and total query words. All effects were significant. Shortest queries had the highest mean scores. One or more proper nouns present provides a significant advantage. Non-time dependent queries have an advantage. Place, name, person, and text description had mean scores between .85 and .9 with date at .81 and number at .59. There were significant differences in score by search engine. Search engines found at least one correct answer in between 87.7 and 75.45 of the cases. Google and Northern Light were just short of a 90% hit rate. No evidence indicated that a particular engine was better at answering any particular sort of question.