Search (50 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Madelung, H.-O.: Subject searching in the social sciences : a comparison of PRECIS and KWIC indexes indexes to newspaper articles (1982) 0.04
    0.037267443 = product of:
      0.18633722 = sum of:
        0.18633722 = weight(_text_:index in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18633722 = score(doc=5517,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    89 articles from a small, Danish left-wing newspaper were indexed by PRECIS and KWIC. The articles cover a wide range of social science subjects. Controlled test searches in both indexes were carried out by 20 students of library science. The results obtained from this small-scale retrieval test were evaluated by a chi-square test. The PRECIS index led to more correct answers and fewer wrong answers than the KWIC index, i.e. it had both better recall and greater precision. Furthermore, the students were more confident in their judgement of the relevance of retrieved articles in the PRECIS index than in the KWIC index; and they generally favoured the PRECIS index in the subjective judgement they were asked to make
    Theme
    Preserved Context Index System (PRECIS)
  2. Aitchison, T.M.: Comparative evaluation of index languages : Part I, Design. Part II, Results (1969) 0.03
    0.030428741 = product of:
      0.1521437 = sum of:
        0.1521437 = weight(_text_:index in 561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1521437 = score(doc=561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=561)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
  3. Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.: ¬The testing of index language devices (1963) 0.03
    0.026081776 = product of:
      0.13040888 = sum of:
        0.13040888 = weight(_text_:index in 577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13040888 = score(doc=577,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 577, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=577)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
  4. Oberhauser, O.; Labner, J.: OPAC-Erweiterung durch automatische Indexierung : Empirische Untersuchung mit Daten aus dem Österreichischen Verbundkatalog (2002) 0.02
    0.022587484 = product of:
      0.11293741 = sum of:
        0.11293741 = weight(_text_:index in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11293741 = score(doc=883,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    In Anlehnung an die in den neunziger Jahren durchgeführten Erschließungsprojekte MILOS I und MILOS II, die die Eignung eines Verfahrens zur automatischen Indexierung für Bibliothekskataloge zum Thema hatten, wurde eine empirische Untersuchung anhand einer repräsentativen Stichprobe von Titelsätzen aus dem Österreichischen Verbundkatalog durchgeführt. Ziel war die Prüfung und Bewertung der Einsatzmöglichkeit dieses Verfahrens in den Online-Katalogen des Verbundes. Der Realsituation der OPAC-Benutzung gemäß wurde ausschließlich die Auswirkung auf den automatisch generierten Begriffen angereicherten Basic Index ("Alle Felder") untersucht. Dazu wurden 100 Suchanfragen zunächst im ursprünglichen Basic Index und sodann im angereicherten Basic Index in einem OPAC unter Aleph 500 durchgeführt. Die Tests erbrachten einen Zuwachs an relevanten Treffern bei nur leichten Verlusten an Precision, eine Reduktion der Nulltreffer-Ergebnisse sowie Aufschlüsse über die Auswirkung einer vorhandenen verbalen Sacherschließung.
  5. Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984) 0.02
    0.019541508 = product of:
      0.09770754 = sum of:
        0.09770754 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09770754 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=262)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    20.10.2000 12:22:23
  6. Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Parker, J.: Maximizing relevant retrieval : keyword and natural language searching (1998) 0.02
    0.019541508 = product of:
      0.09770754 = sum of:
        0.09770754 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09770754 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6418)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58
  7. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.02
    0.019541508 = product of:
      0.09770754 = sum of:
        0.09770754 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09770754 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
  8. Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990) 0.02
    0.019541508 = product of:
      0.09770754 = sum of:
        0.09770754 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09770754 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5089)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:43:54
  9. Prasher, R.G.: Evaluation of indexing system (1989) 0.02
    0.01738785 = product of:
      0.08693925 = sum of:
        0.08693925 = weight(_text_:index in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08693925 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Describes information system and its various components-index file construstion, query formulation and searching. Discusses an indexing system, and brings out the need for its evaluation. Explains the concept of the efficiency of indexing systems and discusses factors which control this efficiency. Gives criteria for evaluation. Discusses recall and precision ratios, as also noise ratio, novelty ratio, and exhaustivity and specificity and the impact of each on the efficiency of indexing system. Mention also various steps for evaluation.
  10. Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.: ¬The testing of index language devices (1997) 0.02
    0.01738785 = product of:
      0.08693925 = sum of:
        0.08693925 = weight(_text_:index in 576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08693925 = score(doc=576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 576, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=576)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
  11. Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.: ¬The testing of index language devices (1985) 0.02
    0.01738785 = product of:
      0.08693925 = sum of:
        0.08693925 = weight(_text_:index in 3643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08693925 = score(doc=3643,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 3643, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3643)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    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.
  12. Lancaster, F.W.: Evaluating the performance of a large computerized information system (1985) 0.02
    0.01738785 = product of:
      0.08693925 = sum of:
        0.08693925 = weight(_text_:index in 3649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08693925 = score(doc=3649,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 3649, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3649)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    F. W. Lancaster is known for his writing an the state of the art in librarylinformation science. His skill in identifying significant contributions and synthesizing literature in fields as diverse as online systems, vocabulary control, measurement and evaluation, and the paperless society have earned him esteem as a chronicler of information science. Equally deserving of repute is his own contribution to research in the discipline-his evaluation of the MEDLARS operating system. The MEDLARS study is notable for several reasons. It was the first large-scale application of retrieval experiment methodology to the evaluation of an actual operating system. As such, problems had to be faced that do not arise in laboratory-like conditions. One example is the problem of recall: how to determine, for a very large and dynamic database, the number of documents relevant to a given search request. By solving this problem and others attendant upon transferring an experimental methodology to the real world, Lancaster created a constructive procedure that could be used to improve the design and functioning of retrieval systems. The MEDLARS study is notable also for its contribution to our understanding of what constitutes a good index language and good indexing. The ideal retrieval system would be one that retrieves all and only relevant documents. The failures that occur in real operating systems, when a relevant document is not retrieved (a recall failure) or an irrelevant document is retrieved (a precision failure), can be analysed to assess the impact of various factors an the performance of the system. This is exactly what Lancaster did. He found both the MEDLARS indexing and the McSH index language to be significant factors affecting retrieval performance. The indexing, primarily because it was insufficiently exhaustive, explained a large number of recall failures. The index language, largely because of its insufficient specificity, accounted for a large number of precision failures. The purpose of identifying factors responsible for a system's failures is ultimately to improve the system. Unlike many user studies, the MEDLARS evaluation yielded recommendations that were eventually implemented.* Indexing exhaustivity was increased and the McSH index language was enriched with more specific terms and a larger entry vocabulary.
  13. Allen, B.: Logical reasoning and retrieval performance (1993) 0.02
    0.015214371 = product of:
      0.07607185 = sum of:
        0.07607185 = weight(_text_:index in 5093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07607185 = score(doc=5093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 5093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5093)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Tests the logical reasoning ability of end users of a CD-ROM index and assesses associations between different levels of this ability and aspects of retrieval performance. Users' selection of vocabulary and their selection of citations for further examination are both influenced by this ability. The designs of information systems should address the effects of logical reasoning on search behaviour. People with lower levels of logical reasoning ability may experience difficulty using systems in which user selectivity plays an important role. Other systems, such as those with ranked output, may decrease the need for users to make selections and would be easier to use for people with lower levels of logical reasoning ability
  14. Allan, J.; Callan, J.P.; Croft, W.B.; Ballesteros, L.; Broglio, J.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.: INQUERY at TREC-5 (1997) 0.01
    0.01395822 = product of:
      0.0697911 = sum of:
        0.0697911 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0697911 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:55:22
  15. 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) 0.01
    0.01395822 = product of:
      0.0697911 = sum of:
        0.0697911 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0697911 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:59:22
  16. Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983) 0.01
    0.01395822 = product of:
      0.0697911 = sum of:
        0.0697911 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0697911 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Pages
    S.22-25
  17. Guglielmo, E.J.; Rowe, N.C.: Natural-language retrieval of images based on descriptive captions (1996) 0.01
    0.013040888 = product of:
      0.06520444 = sum of:
        0.06520444 = weight(_text_:index in 6624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06520444 = score(doc=6624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 6624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6624)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Describes a prototype intelligent information retrieval system that uses natural-language understanding to efficiently locate captioned data. Multimedia data generally requires captions to explain its features and significance. Such descriptive captions often rely on long nominal compunds (strings of consecutive nouns) which create problems of ambiguous word sense. Presents a system in which captions and user queries are parsed and interpreted to produce a logical form, using a detailed theory of the meaning of nominal compounds. A fine-grain match can then compare the logical form of the query to the logical forms for each caption. To improve system efficiency, the system performs a coarse-grain match with index files, using nouns and verbs extracted from the query. Experiments with randomly selected queries and captions from an existing image library show an increase of 30% in precision and 50% in recall over the keyphrase approach currently used. Processing times have a median of 7 seconds as compared to 8 minutes for the existing system
  18. Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬A test for the separation of relevant and non-relevant documents in experimental retrieval collections (1973) 0.01
    0.011166576 = product of:
      0.05583288 = sum of:
        0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05583288 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    19. 3.1996 11:22:12
  19. Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996) 0.01
    0.011166576 = product of:
      0.05583288 = sum of:
        0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05583288 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Source
    Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
  20. Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997) 0.01
    0.011166576 = product of:
      0.05583288 = sum of:
        0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05583288 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051511593 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Languages

  • e 44
  • d 4
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 44
  • s 4
  • m 3
  • el 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…