-
Schultz Jr., W.N.; Braddy, L.: ¬A librarian-centered study of perceptions of subject terms and controlled vocabulary (2017)
0.04
0.035516314 = product of:
0.124307096 = sum of:
0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042009152 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035193928 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023552012 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- 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.
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.7/8, S.456-466
-
Hider, P.: ¬The search value added by professional indexing to a bibliographic database (2017)
0.01
0.012503441 = product of:
0.087524086 = sum of:
0.051972847 = weight(_text_:subject in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051972847 = score(doc=3868,freq=12.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.48397237 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035551235 = score(doc=3868,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This paper reports on an analysis of the loss levels that would result if a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI), were missing the subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by its professional indexers, employing the methodology developed by Gross and Taylor (2005), and later by Gross et al. (2015). The results indicate that AEI users would lose a similar proportion of hits per query to that experienced by library catalog users: on average, 27% of the resources found by a sample of keyword queries on the AEI database would not have been found without the subject indexing, based on the Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors (ATED). The paper also discusses the methodological limitations of these studies, pointing out that real-life users might still find some of the resources missed by a particular query through follow-up searches, while additional resources might also be found through iterative searching on the subject vocabulary. The paper goes on to describe a new research design, based on a before - and - after experiment, which addresses some of these limitations. It is argued that this alternative design will provide a more realistic picture of the value that professionally assigned subject indexing and controlled subject vocabularies can add to literature searching of a more scholarly and thorough kind.
-
Hider, P.: ¬The search value added by professional indexing to a bibliographic database (2018)
0.01
0.012503441 = product of:
0.087524086 = sum of:
0.051972847 = weight(_text_:subject in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051972847 = score(doc=4300,freq=12.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.48397237 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035551235 = score(doc=4300,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This article reports on an investigation of the search value that subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by professional indexers add to a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI). First, a similar methodology to that developed by Gross et al. (2015) was applied, with keyword searches representing a range of educational topics run on the AEI database with and without its subject indexing. The results indicated that AEI users would also lose, on average, about a quarter of hits per query. Second, an alternative research design was applied in which an experienced literature searcher was asked to find resources on a set of educational topics on an AEI database stripped of its subject indexing and then asked to search for additional resources on the same topics after the subject indexing had been reinserted. In this study, the proportion of additional resources that would have been lost had it not been for the subject indexing was again found to be about a quarter of the total resources found for each topic, on average.
-
Munkelt, J.; Schaer, P.; Lepsky, K.: Towards an IR test collection for the German National Library (2018)
0.00
0.0018186709 = product of:
0.02546139 = sum of:
0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02546139 = score(doc=4311,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4311, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4311)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Automatic content indexing is one of the innovations that are increasingly changing the way libraries work. In theory, it promises a cataloguing service that would hardly be possible with humans in terms of speed, quantity and maybe quality. The German National Library (DNB) has also recognised this potential and is increasingly relying on the automatic indexing of their catalogue content. The DNB took a major step in this direction in 2017, which was announced in two papers. The announcement was rather restrained, but the content of the papers is all the more explosive for the library community: Since September 2017, the DNB has discontinued the intellectual indexing of series Band H and has switched to an automatic process for these series. The subject indexing of online publications (series O) has been purely automatical since 2010; from September 2017, monographs and periodicals published outside the publishing industry and university publications will no longer be indexed by people. This raises the question: What is the quality of the automatic indexing compared to the manual work or in other words to which degree can the automatic indexing replace people without a signi cant drop in regards to quality?
-
Vakkari, P.; Huuskonen, S.: Search effort degrades search output but improves task outcome (2012)
0.00
0.0015155592 = product of:
0.021217827 = sum of:
0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021217827 = score(doc=46,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- We analyzed how effort in searching is associated with search output and task outcome. In a field study, we examined how students' search effort for an assigned learning task was associated with precision and relative recall, and how this was associated to the quality of learning outcome. The study subjects were 41 medical students writing essays for a class in medicine. Searching in Medline was part of their assignment. The data comprised students' search logs in Medline, their assessment of the usefulness of references retrieved, a questionnaire concerning the search process, and evaluation scores of the essays given by the teachers. Pearson correlation was calculated for answering the research questions. Finally, a path model for predicting task outcome was built. We found that effort in the search process degraded precision but improved task outcome. There were two major mechanisms reducing precision while enhancing task outcome. Effort in expanding Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms within search sessions and effort in assessing and exploring documents in the result list between the sessions degraded precision, but led to better task outcome. Thus, human effort compensated bad retrieval results on the way to good task outcome. Findings suggest that traditional effectiveness measures in information retrieval should be complemented with evaluation measures for search process and outcome.
-
Reichert, S.; Mayr, P.: Untersuchung von Relevanzeigenschaften in einem kontrollierten Eyetracking-Experiment (2012)
0.00
8.7171455E-4 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 328, 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=328)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:25:54
-
Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4197, 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=4197)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:20:56
-
Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 12. 7.2011 18:29:22
-
Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 6. 4.2015 19:31:22
-
Ravana, S.D.; Taheri, M.S.; Rajagopal, P.: Document-based approach to improve the accuracy of pairwise comparison in evaluating information retrieval systems (2015)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2587, 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=2587)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Rajagopal, P.; Ravana, S.D.; Koh, Y.S.; Balakrishnan, V.: Evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems using effort-based relevance judgment (2019)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5287, 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=5287)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
