Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Schultz Jr., W.N.; Braddy, L.: ¬A librarian-centered study of perceptions of subject terms and controlled vocabulary (2017) 0.04 
    0.042387545 = product of:
  0.08477509 = sum of:
    0.08477509 = product of:
      0.16955018 = sum of:
        0.16955018 = weight(_text_:librarian in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16955018 = score(doc=5156,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25439066 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9754615 = idf(docFreq=829, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = queryNorm
            0.6664953 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.9754615 = idf(docFreq=829, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.
  2. Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984) 0.02 
    0.024245484 = product of:
  0.048490968 = sum of:
    0.048490968 = product of:
      0.096981935 = sum of:
        0.096981935 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096981935 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20.10.2000 12:22:23
  3. Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Parker, J.: Maximizing relevant retrieval : keyword and natural language searching (1998) 0.02 
    0.024245484 = product of:
  0.048490968 = sum of:
    0.048490968 = product of:
      0.096981935 = sum of:
        0.096981935 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096981935 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58
  4. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.02 
    0.024245484 = product of:
  0.048490968 = sum of:
    0.048490968 = product of:
      0.096981935 = sum of:
        0.096981935 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096981935 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
  5. Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990) 0.02 
    0.024245484 = product of:
  0.048490968 = sum of:
    0.048490968 = product of:
      0.096981935 = sum of:
        0.096981935 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096981935 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:43:54
  6. Hallet, K.S.: Separate but equal? : A system comparison study of MEDLINE's controlled vocabulary MeSH (1998) 0.02 
    0.020976393 = product of:
  0.041952785 = sum of:
    0.041952785 = product of:
      0.08390557 = sum of:
        0.08390557 = weight(_text_:librarian in 3553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08390557 = score(doc=3553,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25439066 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9754615 = idf(docFreq=829, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = queryNorm
            0.3298296 = fieldWeight in 3553, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9754615 = idf(docFreq=829, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to test the effect of controlled vocabulary search feature implementation on 2 online systems. Specifically, the study examined retrieval rates using 4 unique controlled vocabulary search features (Explode, major descriptor, descriptor, subheadings). 2 questions were addressed; what, if any, are the general differences between controlled vocabulary system implementations in DIALOG and Ovid; and what, if any are the impacts of each on the differing controlled vocabulary search features upon retrieval rates? Each search feature was applied to to 9 search queries obtained from a medical reference librarian. The same queires were searched in the complete MEDLINE file on the DIALOG and Ovid online host systems. The unique records (those records retrieved in only 1 of the 2 systems) were identified and analyzed. DIALOG produced equal or more records than Ovid in nearly 20% of the queries. Concludes than users need to be aware of system specific designs that may require differing input strategies across different systems for the same unique controlled vocabulary search features. Making recommendations and suggestions for future research
  7. Allan, J.; Callan, J.P.; Croft, W.B.; Ballesteros, L.; Broglio, J.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.: INQUERY at TREC-5 (1997) 0.02 
    0.017318204 = product of:
  0.034636408 = sum of:
    0.034636408 = product of:
      0.069272816 = sum of:
        0.069272816 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069272816 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:55:22
  8. Ng, K.B.; Loewenstern, D.; Basu, C.; Hirsh, H.; Kantor, P.B.: Data fusion of machine-learning methods for the TREC5 routing tak (and other work) (1997) 0.02 
    0.017318204 = product of:
  0.034636408 = sum of:
    0.034636408 = product of:
      0.069272816 = sum of:
        0.069272816 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069272816 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:59:22
  9. Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983) 0.02 
    0.017318204 = product of:
  0.034636408 = sum of:
    0.034636408 = product of:
      0.069272816 = sum of:
        0.069272816 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069272816 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.22-25
  10. Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.: ¬The testing of index language devices (1985) 0.01 
    0.013984262 = product of:
  0.027968524 = sum of:
    0.027968524 = product of:
      0.055937048 = sum of:
        0.055937048 = weight(_text_:librarian in 3643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055937048 = score(doc=3643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25439066 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.9754615 = idf(docFreq=829, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = queryNorm
            0.2198864 = fieldWeight in 3643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.9754615 = idf(docFreq=829, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A landmark event in the twentieth-century development of subject analysis theory was a retrieval experiment, begun in 1957, by Cyril Cleverdon, Librarian of the Cranfield Institute of Technology. For this work he received the Professional Award of the Special Libraries Association in 1962 and the Award of Merit of the American Society for Information Science in 1970. The objective of the experiment, called Cranfield I, was to test the ability of four indexing systems-UDC, Facet, Uniterm, and Alphabetic-Subject Headings-to retrieve material responsive to questions addressed to a collection of documents. The experiment was ambitious in scale, consisting of eighteen thousand documents and twelve hundred questions. Prior to Cranfield I, the question of what constitutes good indexing was approached subjectively and reference was made to assumptions in the form of principles that should be observed or user needs that should be met. Cranfield I was the first large-scale effort to use objective criteria for determining the parameters of good indexing. Its creative impetus was the definition of user satisfaction in terms of precision and recall. Out of the experiment emerged the definition of recall as the percentage of relevant documents retrieved and precision as the percentage of retrieved documents that were relevant. Operationalizing the concept of user satisfaction, that is, making it measurable, meant that it could be studied empirically and manipulated as a variable in mathematical equations. Much has been made of the fact that the experimental methodology of Cranfield I was seriously flawed. This is unfortunate as it tends to diminish Cleverdon's contribu tion, which was not methodological-such contributions can be left to benchmark researchers-but rather creative: the introduction of a new paradigm, one that proved to be eminently productive. The criticism leveled at the methodological shortcomings of Cranfield I underscored the need for more precise definitions of the variables involved in information retrieval. Particularly important was the need for a definition of the dependent variable index language. Like the definitions of precision and recall, that of index language provided a new way of looking at the indexing process. It was a re-visioning that stimulated research activity and led not only to a better understanding of indexing but also the design of better retrieval systems." Cranfield I was followed by Cranfield II. While Cranfield I was a wholesale comparison of four indexing "systems," Cranfield II aimed to single out various individual factors in index languages, called "indexing devices," and to measure how variations in these affected retrieval performance. The following selection represents the thinking at Cranfield midway between these two notable retrieval experiments.
  11. Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬A test for the separation of relevant and non-relevant documents in experimental retrieval collections (1973) 0.01 
    0.013854562 = product of:
  0.027709125 = sum of:
    0.027709125 = product of:
      0.05541825 = sum of:
        0.05541825 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541825 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    19. 3.1996 11:22:12
  12. Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996) 0.01 
    0.013854562 = product of:
  0.027709125 = sum of:
    0.027709125 = product of:
      0.05541825 = sum of:
        0.05541825 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541825 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  13. Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997) 0.01 
    0.013854562 = product of:
  0.027709125 = sum of:
    0.027709125 = product of:
      0.05541825 = sum of:
        0.05541825 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541825 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  14. ¬The Fifth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-5) (1997) 0.01 
    0.013854562 = product of:
  0.027709125 = sum of:
    0.027709125 = product of:
      0.05541825 = sum of:
        0.05541825 = weight(_text_:22 in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541825 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3087, 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=3087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Proceedings of the 5th TREC-confrerence held in Gaithersburgh, Maryland, Nov 20-22, 1996. Aim of the conference was discussion on retrieval techniques for large test collections. Different research groups used different techniques, such as automated thesauri, term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The proceedings include papers, tables of the system results, and brief system descriptions including timing and storage information
  15. Pemberton, J.K.; Ojala, M.; Garman, N.: Head to head : searching the Web versus traditional services (1998) 0.01 
    0.013854562 = product of:
  0.027709125 = sum of:
    0.027709125 = product of:
      0.05541825 = sum of:
        0.05541825 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541825 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28
  16. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.01 
    0.013854562 = product of:
  0.027709125 = sum of:
    0.027709125 = product of:
      0.05541825 = sum of:
        0.05541825 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541825 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die deutschen Suchmaschinen, Abacho, Acoon, Fireball und Lycos sowie die Web-Kataloge Web.de und Yahoo! werden einem Qualitätstest nach relativem Recall, Precision und Availability unterzogen. Die Methoden der Retrievaltests werden vorgestellt. Im Durchschnitt werden bei einem Cut-Off-Wert von 25 ein Recall von rund 22%, eine Precision von knapp 19% und eine Verfügbarkeit von 24% erreicht
  17. Ellis, D.: Progress and problems in information retrieval (1996) 0.01 
    0.013854562 = product of:
  0.027709125 = sum of:
    0.027709125 = product of:
      0.05541825 = sum of:
        0.05541825 = weight(_text_:22 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541825 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26. 7.2002 20:22:46
  18. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.01 
    0.013854562 = product of:
  0.027709125 = sum of:
    0.027709125 = product of:
      0.05541825 = sum of:
        0.05541825 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541825 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Proceedings of the llth TREC-conference held in Gaithersburg, Maryland (USA), November 19-22, 2002. Aim of the conference was discussion an retrieval and related information-seeking tasks for large test collection. 93 research groups used different techniques, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The tasks are: Cross-language searching, filtering, interactive searching, searching for novelty, question answering, searching for video shots, and Web searching.
  19. Blagden, J.F.: How much noise in a role-free and link-free co-ordinate indexing system? (1966) 0.01 
    0.012122742 = product of:
  0.024245484 = sum of:
    0.024245484 = product of:
      0.048490968 = sum of:
        0.048490968 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048490968 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 22(1966), S.203-209
  20. Smithson, S.: Information retrieval evaluation in practice : a case study approach (1994) 0.01 
    0.012122742 = product of:
  0.024245484 = sum of:
    0.024245484 = product of:
      0.048490968 = sum of:
        0.048490968 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048490968 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17904525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051129058 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7302, 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=7302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The evaluation of information retrieval systems is an important yet difficult operation. This paper describes an exploratory evaluation study that takes an interpretive approach to evaluation. The longitudinal study examines evaluation through the information-seeking behaviour of 22 case studies of 'real' users. The eclectic approach to data collection produced behavioral data that is compared with relevance judgements and satisfaction ratings. The study demonstrates considerable variations among the cases, among different evaluation measures within the same case, and among the same measures at different stages within a single case. It is argued that those involved in evaluation should be aware of the difficulties, and base any evaluation on a good understanding of the cases in question

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 34
  • d 3
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 35
  • s 3
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes