Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018756237 = product of:
  0.04689059 = sum of:
    0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028076671 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
    0.01881392 = product of:
      0.03762784 = sum of:
        0.03762784 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03762784 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, 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=3564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Searches conducted as part of the MEDLINE/Full-Text Research Project revealed that the full-text data bases of clinical medical journal articles (CCML (Comprehensive Core Medical Library) from BRS Information Technologies, and MEDIS from Mead Data Central) did not retrieve all the relevant citations. An analysis of the data indicated that 204 relevant citations were retrieved only by MEDLINE. A comparison of the strategies used on the full-text data bases with the text of the articles of these 204 citations revealed that 2 reasons contributed to these failure. The searcher often constructed a restrictive strategy which resulted in the loss of relevant documents; and as in other kinds of retrieval, the problems of natural language caused the loss of relevant documents.

Date

9. 1.1996 10:22:31

0.01871778 = product of:
  0.0935889 = sum of:
    0.0935889 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0935889 = score(doc=1345,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.6684181 = fieldWeight in 1345, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1345)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vgl. auch : Salton, G.: Another look ... Comm. ACM 29(1986) S.S.648-656; Blair, D.C.: Full text retrieval ... Int. Class. 13(1986) S.18-23: Blair, D.C., M.E. Maron: Full-text information retrieval ... Inf. proc. man. 26(1990) S.437-447.

0.013102447 = product of:
  0.06551223 = sum of:
    0.06551223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06551223 = score(doc=1803,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 1803, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1803)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01255627 = product of:
  0.06278135 = sum of:
    0.06278135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06278135 = score(doc=2047,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recently, a detailed evaluation of a large, operational full-text document retrieval system was reported in the literature. Values of precision and recall were estimated usind traditional statistical sampling methods and blind evaluation procedures. The results of this evaluation demonstrated that the system tested was retrieving less then 20% of the relevant documents when the searchers believed it was retrieving over 75% of the relevant documents. This evaluation is described including some data not reported in the original article. Also discussed are the implications which this study has for how the subjects of documents should be represented, as well as the importance of rigorous retrieval evaluations for the furtherhance of information retrieval research

Footnote

Vgl.: Blair, D.C., M.E. Maron: An evaluation ... Comm. ACM 28(1985) S.280-299; Salton, G.: Another look ... Comm. ACM 29(1986) S.648-656; Blair, D.C., M.E. Maron: Full-text information retrieval ... Inf. Proc. Man. 26(1990) S.437-447.

0.010588376 = product of:
  0.052941877 = sum of:
    0.052941877 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052941877 = score(doc=2046,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 2046, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2046)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In 1985, an article by Blair and Maron described a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of an operational full text retrieval system used to support the defense of a large corporate lawsuit. The following year Salton published an article which called into question the conclusions of the 1985 study. The following article briefly reviews the initial study, replies to the objections raised by the secon article, and clarifies several confusions and misunderstandings of the 1985 study

0.007487112 = product of:
  0.03743556 = sum of:
    0.03743556 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03743556 = score(doc=4087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 4087, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4087)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses the 2 major query evaluation strategies used in large text retrieval systems and analyzes the performance of these strategies. Discusses several optimization techniques that can be used to reduce evaluation costs and present simulation results to compare the performance of these optimization techniques when evaluating natural language queries with a collection of full text legal materials

0.0066177347 = product of:
  0.033088673 = sum of:
    0.033088673 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033088673 = score(doc=4088,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

So far, methods for ellipsis and anaphor resolution have been developed and the effects of anaphor resolution have been analyzed in the context of statistical information retrieval of scientific abstracts. No significant improvements has been observed. Analyzes the effects of ellipsis and anaphor resolution on proximity searching in a full text database. Anaphora and ellipsis are classified on the basis of the type of their correlates / antecedents rather than, as traditional, on the basis of their own linguistic type. The classification differentiates proper names and common nouns of basic words, compound words, and phrases. The study was carried out in a newspaper article database containing 55.000 full text articles. A set of 154 keyword pairs in different categories was created. Human resolution of keyword ellipsis and anaphora was performed to identify sentences and paragraphs which would match proximity searches after resolution. Findings indicate that ellipsis and anaphor resolution is most relevant for proper name phrases and only marginal in the other keyword categories. Therefore the recall effect of restricted resolution of proper name phrases only was analyzed for keyword pairs containing at least 1 proper name phrase. Findings indicate a recall increase of 38.2% in sentence searches, and 28.8% in paragraph searches when proper name ellipsis were resolved. The recall increase was 17.6% sentence searches, and 19.8% in paragraph searches when proper name anaphora were resolved. Some simple and computationally justifiable resolution method might be developed only for proper name phrases to support keyword based full text information retrieval. Discusses elements of such a method