-
Veenema, F.: To index or not to index (1996)
0.04
0.0384129 = product of:
0.11523869 = sum of:
0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016935252 = score(doc=7247,freq=8.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
0.07707182 = weight(_text_:software in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07707182 = score(doc=7247,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.49589399 = fieldWeight in 7247, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7247)
0.021231614 = product of:
0.042463228 = sum of:
0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 7247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042463228 = score(doc=7247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7247, 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=7247)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Describes an experiment comparing the performance of automatic full-text indexing software for personal computers with the human intellectual assignment of indexing terms in each document in a collection. Considers the times required to index the document, to retrieve documents satisfying 5 typical foreseen information needs, and the recall and precision ratios of searching. The software used is QuickFinder facility in WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows
- Source
- Canadian journal of information and library science. 21(1996) no.2, S.1-22
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: ASLIB Cranfield Research Project : Report on the first stage of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1960)
0.03
0.034300853 = product of:
0.102902554 = sum of:
0.021999538 = weight(_text_:of in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021999538 = score(doc=6158,freq=6.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0490556 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
0.031847417 = product of:
0.063694835 = sum of:
0.063694835 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.063694835 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6158)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)
- Imprint
- Cranfield : College of Aeronautics
-
Ballard, R.M.: Indexing and its relevance to technical processing (1993)
0.03
0.03396949 = product of:
0.10190847 = sum of:
0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041947264 = score(doc=554,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019081537 = score(doc=554,freq=26.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040879667 = score(doc=554,freq=8.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 554, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=554)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- The development of regional on-line catalogs and in-house information systems for retrieval of references provide examples of the impact of indexing theory and applications on technical processing. More emphasis must be given to understanding the techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of a file, irrespective of whether that file was created as a library catalog or an index to information sources. The most significant advances in classification theory in recent decades has been as a result of efforts to improve effectiveness of indexing systems. Library classification systems are indexing languages or systems. Courses offered for the preparation of indexers in the United States and the United Kingdom are reviewed. A point of congruence for both the indexer and the library classifier would appear to be the need for a thorough preparation in the techniques of subject analysis. Any subject heading list will suffer from omissions as well as the inclusion of terms which the patron will never use. Indexing theory has provided the technical services department with methods for evaluation of effectiveness. The writer does not believe that these techniques are used, nor do current courses, workshops, and continuing education programs stress them. When theory is totally subjugated to practice, critical thinking and maximum effectiveness will suffer.
-
Harter, S.P.; Cheng, Y.-R.: Colinked descriptors : improving vocabulary selection for end-user searching (1996)
0.03
0.025467023 = product of:
0.07640107 = sum of:
0.010999769 = weight(_text_:of in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010999769 = score(doc=4216,freq=6.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0245278 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.040873505 = weight(_text_:software in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040873505 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.311-325
-
Subrahmanyam, B.: Library of Congress Classification numbers : issues of consistency and their implications for union catalogs (2006)
0.02
0.024950473 = product of:
0.074851416 = sum of:
0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015876798 = score(doc=5784,freq=18.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
0.045704857 = weight(_text_:systems in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045704857 = score(doc=5784,freq=10.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 5784, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5784)
0.013269759 = product of:
0.026539518 = sum of:
0.026539518 = weight(_text_:22 in 5784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026539518 = score(doc=5784,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5784, 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=5784)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This study examined Library of Congress Classification (LCC)-based class numbers assigned to a representative sample of 200 titles in 52 American library systems to determine the level of consistency within and across those systems. The results showed that under the condition that a library system has a title, the probability of that title having the same LCC-based class number across library systems is greater than 85 percent. An examination of 121 titles displaying variations in class numbers among library systems showed certain titles (for example, multi-foci titles, titles in series, bibliographies, and fiction) lend themselves to alternate class numbers. Others were assigned variant numbers either due to latitude in the schedules or for reasons that cannot be pinpointed. With increasing dependence on copy cataloging, the size of such variations may continue to decrease. As the preferred class number with its alternates represents a title more fully than just the preferred class number, this paper argues for continued use of alternates by library systems and for finding a method to link alternate class numbers to preferred class numbers for enriched subject access through local and union catalogs.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: Evaluation tests of information retrieval systems (1970)
0.02
0.019857228 = product of:
0.089357525 = sum of:
0.023950063 = weight(_text_:of in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023950063 = score(doc=2272,freq=4.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
0.06540746 = weight(_text_:systems in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06540746 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 26(1970), S.55-67
-
Cleverdon, C.W.: Aslib Cranfield research project : report on the testing and analysis of an investigation into the comparative efficiency of indexing systems (1962)
0.02
0.019857228 = product of:
0.089357525 = sum of:
0.023950063 = weight(_text_:of in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023950063 = score(doc=2741,freq=4.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
0.06540746 = weight(_text_:systems in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06540746 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.5432656 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
-
Cleverdon, C.W.; Mills, J.; Keen, M.: Factors determining the performance of indexing systems : ASLIB Cranfield research project (1966)
0.02
0.017375076 = product of:
0.07818784 = sum of:
0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 5363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020956306 = score(doc=5363,freq=4.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 5363, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5363)
0.057231534 = weight(_text_:systems in 5363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057231534 = score(doc=5363,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 5363, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5363)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Imprint
- Cranfield : The College of Aeronautics
-
Boyce, B.R.; McLain, J.P.: Entry point depth and online search using a controlled vocabulary (1989)
0.02
0.016751163 = product of:
0.07538023 = sum of:
0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018148692 = score(doc=2287,freq=12.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
0.057231534 = weight(_text_:systems in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057231534 = score(doc=2287,freq=8.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 2287, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2287)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The depth of indexing, the number of terms assigned on average to each document in a retrieval system as entry points, has a significantly effect on the standard retrieval performance measures in modern commercial retrieval systems, just as it did in previous experimental work. Tests on the effect of basic index search, as opposed to controlled vocabulary search, in these real systems are quite different than traditional comparisons of free text searching with controlled vocabulary searching. In modern commercial systems the controlled vocabulary serves as a precision device, since the strucure of the default for unqualified search terms in these systems requires that it do so.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.273-276
-
Morris, L.R.: ¬The frequency of use of Library of Congress Classification numbers and Dewey Decimal Classification numbers in the MARC file in the field of library science (1991)
0.02
0.015781691 = product of:
0.07101761 = sum of:
0.030548802 = weight(_text_:of in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030548802 = score(doc=2308,freq=34.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.4986512 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
0.04046881 = weight(_text_:systems in 2308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04046881 = score(doc=2308,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 2308, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2308)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The LCC and DDC systems were devised and updated by librarians who had and have no access to the eventual frequency of use of each number in those classification systems. 80% of the monographs in a MARC file of over 1.000.000 records are classified into 20% of the classification numbers in the field of library science and only 20% of the mongraphs are classified into 80% of the classification numbers in the field of library science. Classification of monographs coulld be made easier and performed more accurately if many of the little used and unused numbers were eliminated and many of the most crowded numbers were expanded. A number of examples are included
-
Huffman, G.D.; Vital, D.A.; Bivins, R.G.: Generating indices with lexical association methods : term uniqueness (1990)
0.01
0.014778409 = product of:
0.06650284 = sum of:
0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018332949 = score(doc=4152,freq=24.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
0.048169892 = weight(_text_:software in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048169892 = score(doc=4152,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.30993375 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- A software system has been developed which orders citations retrieved from an online database in terms of relevancy. The system resulted from an effort generated by NASA's Technology Utilization Program to create new advanced software tools to largely automate the process of determining relevancy of database citations retrieved to support large technology transfer studies. The ranking is based on the generation of an enriched vocabulary using lexical association methods, a user assessment of the vocabulary and a combination of the user assessment and the lexical metric. One of the key elements in relevancy ranking is the enriched vocabulary -the terms mst be both unique and descriptive. This paper examines term uniqueness. Six lexical association methods were employed to generate characteristic word indices. A limited subset of the terms - the highest 20,40,60 and 7,5% of the uniquess words - we compared and uniquess factors developed. Computational times were also measured. It was found that methods based on occurrences and signal produced virtually the same terms. The limited subset of terms producedby the exact and centroid discrimination value were also nearly identical. Unique terms sets were produced by teh occurrence, variance and discrimination value (centroid), An end-user evaluation showed that the generated terms were largely distinct and had values of word precision which were consistent with values of the search precision.
-
Chartron, G.; Dalbin, S.; Monteil, M.-G.; Verillon, M.: Indexation manuelle et indexation automatique : dépasser les oppositions (1989)
0.01
0.013932516 = product of:
0.06269632 = sum of:
0.022227516 = weight(_text_:of in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022227516 = score(doc=3516,freq=18.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
0.04046881 = weight(_text_:systems in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04046881 = score(doc=3516,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Report of a study comparing 2 methods of indexing: LEXINET, a computerised system for indexing titles and summaries only; and manual indexing of full texts, using the thesaurus developed by French Electricity (EDF). Both systems were applied to a collection of approximately 2.000 documents on artifical intelligence from the EDF data base. The results were then analysed to compare quantitative performance (number and range of terms) and qualitative performance (ambiguity of terms, specificity, variability, consistency). Overall, neither system proved ideal: LEXINET was deficient as regards lack of accessibility and excessive ambiguity; while the manual system gave rise to an over-wide variation of terms. The ideal system would appear to be a combination of automatic and manual systems, on the evidence produced here.
-
Soergel, D.: Indexing and retrieval performance : the logical evidence (1994)
0.01
0.013932516 = product of:
0.06269632 = sum of:
0.022227516 = weight(_text_:of in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022227516 = score(doc=579,freq=18.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
0.04046881 = weight(_text_:systems in 579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04046881 = score(doc=579,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 579, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=579)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This article presents a logical analysis of the characteristics of indexing and their effects on retrieval performance.It establishes the ability to ask the questions one needs to ask as the foundation of performance evaluation, and recall and discrimination as the basic quantitative performance measures for binary noninteractive retrieval systems. It then defines the characteristics of indexing that affect retrieval - namely, indexing devices, viewpoint-based and importance-based indexing exhaustivity, indexing specifity, indexing correctness, and indexing consistency - and examines in detail their effects on retrieval. It concludes that retrieval performance depends chiefly on the match between indexing and the requirements of the individual query and on the adaption of the query formulation to the characteristics of the retrieval system, and that the ensuing complexity must be considered in the design and testing of retrieval systems
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.8, S.589-599
-
Hersh, W.R.; Hickam, D.H.: ¬A comparison of two methods for indexing and retrieval from a full-text medical database (1992)
0.01
0.013650025 = product of:
0.061425112 = sum of:
0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020956306 = score(doc=4526,freq=16.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
0.04046881 = weight(_text_:systems in 4526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04046881 = score(doc=4526,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 4526, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4526)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study of 2 information retrieval systems on a 2.000 document full text medical database. The first system, SAPHIRE, features concept based automatic indexing and statistical retrieval techniques, while the second system, SWORD, features traditional word based Boolean techniques, 16 medical students at Oregon Health Sciences Univ. each performed 10 searches and their results, recorded in terms of recall and precision, showed nearly equal performance for both systems. SAPHIRE was also compared with a version of SWORD modified to use automatic indexing and ranked retrieval. Using batch input of queries, the latter method performed slightly better
- Source
- Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Pittsburgh, 26.-29.10.92. Ed.: D. Shaw
-
Rowley, J.: ¬The controlled versus natural indexing languages debate revisited : a perspective on information retrieval practice and research (1994)
0.01
0.013639228 = product of:
0.061376527 = sum of:
0.02049686 = weight(_text_:of in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02049686 = score(doc=7151,freq=30.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 7151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040879667 = score(doc=7151,freq=8.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 7151, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7151)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This article revisits the debate concerning controlled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formulated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advance in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases
- Source
- Journal of information science. 20(1994) no.2, S.108-119
-
Saarti, J.: Consistency of subject indexing of novels by public library professionals and patrons (2002)
0.01
0.01291258 = product of:
0.05810661 = sum of:
0.025402876 = weight(_text_:of in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025402876 = score(doc=4473,freq=18.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 4473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03270373 = score(doc=4473,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4473, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4473)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The paper discusses the consistency of fiction indexing of library professionals and patrons based on an empirical test. Indexing was carried out with a Finnish fictional thesaurus and all of the test persons indexed the same five novels. The consistency of indexing was determined to be low; several reasons are postulated. Also an algorithm for typified indexing of fiction is given as well as some suggestions for the development of fiction information retrieval systems and content representation.
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.1, S.49-65
-
Prasher, R.G.: Evaluation of indexing system (1989)
0.01
0.011876687 = product of:
0.053445093 = sum of:
0.020741362 = weight(_text_:of in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020741362 = score(doc=4998,freq=12.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03270373 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- 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.
- Source
- Herald of library science. 28(1989) no.3, S.157-65
-
Connell, T.H.: Use of the LCSH system : realities (1996)
0.01
0.011298507 = product of:
0.050843284 = sum of:
0.022227516 = weight(_text_:of in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022227516 = score(doc=6941,freq=18.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028615767 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Explores the question of whether academic libraries keep up with the changes in the LCSH system. Analysis of the handling of 15 subject headings in 50 academic library catalogues available via the Internet found that libraries are not consistently maintaining subject authority control, or making syndetic references and scope notes in their catalogues. Discusses the results from the perspective of the libraries' performance, performance on the headings overall, performance on references, performance on the type of change made to the headings,a nd performance within 3 widely used onlien catalogue systems (DRA, INNOPAC and NOTIS). Discusses the implications of the findings in relationship to expressions of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of subject cataloguing expressed by discussion groups on the Internet
-
David, C.; Giroux, L.; Bertrand-Gastaldy, S.; Lanteigne, D.: Indexing as problem solving : a cognitive approach to consistency (1995)
0.01
0.010539032 = product of:
0.047425643 = sum of:
0.022897845 = weight(_text_:of in 3609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022897845 = score(doc=3609,freq=26.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 3609, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3609)
0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 3609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0245278 = score(doc=3609,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3609, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3609)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Indexers differ in their judgement as to which terms reflect adequately the content of a document. Studies of interindexers' consistency identified several factors associated with low consistency, but failed to provide a comprehensive model of this phenomenon. Our research applies theories and methods from cognitive psychology to the study of indexing behavior. From a theoretical standpoint, indexing is considered as a problem solving situation. To access to the cognitive processes of indexers, 3 kinds of verbal reports are used. We will present results of an experiment in which 4 experienced indexers indexed the same documents. It will be shown that the 3 kinds of verbal reports provide complementary data on strategic behavior, and that it is of prime importance to consider the indexing task as an ill-defined problem, where the solution is partly defined by the indexer him(her)self
- Imprint
- Alberta : Alberta University, School of Library and Information Studies
- Source
- Connectedness: information, systems, people, organizations. Proceedings of CAIS/ACSI 95, the proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science. Ed. by Hope A. Olson and Denis B. Ward
-
Tseng, Y.-H.: Keyword extraction techniques and relevance feedback (1997)
0.01
0.010392102 = product of:
0.04676446 = sum of:
0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018148692 = score(doc=1830,freq=12.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028615767 = score(doc=1830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Automatic keyword extraction is an important and fundamental technology in an advanced information retrieval systems. Briefly compares several major keyword extraction methods, lists their advantages and disadvantages, and reports recent research progress in Taiwan. Also describes the application of a keyword extraction algorithm in an information retrieval system for relevance feedback. Preliminary analysis shows that the error rate of extracting relevant keywords is 18%, and that the precision rate is over 50%. The main disadvantage of this approach is that the extraction results depend on the retrieval results, which in turn depend on the data held by the database. Apart from collecting more data, this problem can be alleviated by the application of a thesaurus constructed by the same keyword extraction algorithm
- Source
- Bulletin of the Library Association of China. 1997, no.59, Dec., S.59-64
