Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0056821858 = product of:
  0.08523278 = sum of:
    0.08523278 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 1626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08523278 = score(doc=1626,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.6421798 = fieldWeight in 1626, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1626)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Most of the criteria proposed to date for the evaluation of OPACs focus on evaluation of their retrieval function. Argues that the storage function is more important because the quality of information retrieval systems is dependent on the quality of stored information as well as the description and depth of indexing of stored information. States that OPACs should therefore be evaluated from the perspectives of both storage and retrieval functions. Examines 4 studies on criteria for evaluating OPACs and suggests a new evaluation framework based on the work of C.R. Hildreth

0.0029786127 = product of:
  0.044679187 = sum of:
    0.044679187 = weight(_text_:web in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044679187 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

0.0014872111 = product of:
  0.022308165 = sum of:
    0.022308165 = product of:
      0.04461633 = sum of:
        0.04461633 = weight(_text_:online in 2642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04461633 = score(doc=2642,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.4646225 = fieldWeight in 2642, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2642)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In online retrieval search results do not always match the intent in spite of using correct keywords (descriptors). One of the causes of this problem is found in the hierarchical structures of the thesaurus, which often contains relations between broader and narrower concepts, the opposite of which is not necessarily true. Some examples are described from 2 thesauri, MeSH and JICST. In these cases searchers need to make an effort to increase precision

Source

Online Kensaku. 15(1994) no.4, S.183-186

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.0011431752 = product of:
  0.017147627 = sum of:
    0.017147627 = product of:
      0.034295253 = sum of:
        0.034295253 = weight(_text_:22 in 867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034295253 = score(doc=867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 867, 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=867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) system, extensively used in Japanese libraries, was devised in 1929. It is difficult to use NDC to classify world literature, such as fiction in English by non American, non British writers. This is not necessarily straightforward in other classification schemes but a survey of 40 Japanese university libraries, of which 24 responded, showed remarkable inconsistencies in the treatment of 22 world literature authors. NDC clearly needs updating to deal with this problem

8.5864164E-4 = product of:
  0.012879624 = sum of:
    0.012879624 = product of:
      0.025759248 = sum of:
        0.025759248 = weight(_text_:online in 3342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025759248 = score(doc=3342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 3342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3342)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

8.5864164E-4 = product of:
  0.012879624 = sum of:
    0.012879624 = product of:
      0.025759248 = sum of:
        0.025759248 = weight(_text_:online in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025759248 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval