Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

0.019313892 = product of:
  0.11588335 = sum of:
    0.1004296 = weight(_text_:205 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1004296 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2057144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.48819917 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
    0.015453748 = product of:
      0.030907497 = sum of:
        0.030907497 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030907497 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

The evaluation of information retrieval systems is an important yet difficult operation. This paper describes an exploratory evaluation study that takes an interpretive approach to evaluation. The longitudinal study examines evaluation through the information-seeking behaviour of 22 case studies of 'real' users. The eclectic approach to data collection produced behavioral data that is compared with relevance judgements and satisfaction ratings. The study demonstrates considerable variations among the cases, among different evaluation measures within the same case, and among the same measures at different stages within a single case. It is argued that those involved in evaluation should be aware of the difficulties, and base any evaluation on a good understanding of the cases in question

Source

Information processing and management. 30(1994) no.2, S.205-221

0.0120291 = product of:
  0.1443492 = sum of:
    0.1443492 = weight(_text_:systeme in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1443492 = score(doc=3159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17439179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.82772934 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

0.0062513794 = product of:
  0.07501655 = sum of:
    0.07501655 = weight(_text_:verteilte in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07501655 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21036641 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.45514 = idf(docFreq=188, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.35659945 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.45514 = idf(docFreq=188, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Verteilte bibliographische Datenbanken

0.006249511 = product of:
  0.07499413 = sum of:
    0.07499413 = weight(_text_:informatik in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07499413 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1662844 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.4509992 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Series

Informatik-Fachberichte; 289

0.0059779524 = product of:
  0.07173543 = sum of:
    0.07173543 = weight(_text_:205 in 2423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07173543 = score(doc=2423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2057144 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.3487137 = fieldWeight in 2423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.312392 = idf(docFreq=217, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2423)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Search statements in this revision process can be viewed as a 'move' in the overall search strategy. Very little is known about how end users develop and revise their search strategies. A study was conducted to analyse the moves made in 244 data base searches conducted by 26 medical students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Students search INQUIRER, a data base of facts and concepts in microbiology. The searches were conducted during a 3-week period in spring 1990 and were recorded by the INQUIRER system. Each search statement was categorised, using Fidel's online searching moves (S. Online review 9(1985) S.61-74) and Bates' search tactics (s. JASIS 30(1979) S.205-214). Further analyses indicated that the most common moves were Browse/Specity, Select Exhaust, Intersect, and Vary, and that selection of moves varied by student and by problem. Analysis of search tactics (combinations of moves) identified 5 common search approaches. The results of this study have implcations for future research on search behaviours, for thedesign of system interfaces and data base structures, and for the training of end users

0.0035086013 = product of:
  0.042103216 = sum of:
    0.042103216 = weight(_text_:internet in 6689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042103216 = score(doc=6689,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.43761572 = fieldWeight in 6689, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6689)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

An important indicator of a maturating Internet is the development of metrics for its evaluation as a practical tool for enduser information retrieval. However, the Internet presents specific problems for traditional IR measures, such as the need to deal with the variety of classes of retrieval tools. This paper presents a metric for comparing the performance of common classes of Internet information retrieval tool, including human indexed catalogs of web resources and automatically indexed databases of web pages. The metric uses a relevance-based quantitative measure to compare the performance of endusers using these Internet information retrieval tools. The benefit of the proposed metric is that it is relevance-based (using enduser relevance judgments), and it facilitates the comparison of the performance of different classes of IIR tools

0.0032029 = product of:
  0.0384348 = sum of:
    0.0384348 = weight(_text_:internet in 4481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0384348 = score(doc=4481,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.39948666 = fieldWeight in 4481, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4481)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

An empirical investigation of the consistency of retrieval through Internet search engines is reported. Thirteen engines are evaluated: AltaVista, EuroFerret, Excite, HotBot, InfoSeek, Lycos, MSN, NorthernLight, Snap, WebCrawler and three national Dutch engines: Ilse, Search.nl and Vindex. The focus is on a characteristics related to size: the degree of consistency to which an engine retrieves documents. Does an engine always present the same relevant documents that are, or were, available in its databases? We observed and identified three types of fluctuations in the result sets of several kinds of searches, many of them significant. These should be taken into account by users who apply an Internet search engine, for instance to retrieve as many relevant documents as possible, or to retrieve a document that was already found in a previous search, or to perform scientometric/bibliometric measurements. The fluctuations should also be considered as a complication of other research on the behaviour and performance of Internet search engines. In conclusion: in view of the increasing importance of the Internet as a publication/communication medium, the fluctuations in the result sets of Internet search engines can no longer be neglected.

0.0031707096 = product of:
  0.038048513 = sum of:
    0.038048513 = weight(_text_:internet in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038048513 = score(doc=2264,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.39547163 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

State of the art review of information retrieval systems, defined as systems retrieving documents a sopposed to numerical data. Explains the classic Cranfield studies that have served as a standard for retrieval testing since the 1960s and discusses the Cranfield model and its relevance based measures of retrieval effectiveness. Details sosme of the problems with the Cranfield instruments and issues of validity and reliability, generalizability, usefulness and basic concepts. Discusses the evaluation of the Internet search engines in light of the Cranfield model, noting the very real differences between batch systems (Cranfield) and interactive systems (Internet). Because the Internet collection is not fixed, it is impossible to determine recall as a measure of retrieval effectiveness. considers future directions in evaluating information retrieval systems

0.00276192 = product of:
  0.03314304 = sum of:
    0.03314304 = weight(_text_:informatik in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03314304 = score(doc=636,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1662844 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.19931538 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.1024737 = idf(docFreq=730, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

BK

54.75 / Sprachverarbeitung <Informatik>

Classification

54.75 / Sprachverarbeitung <Informatik>

0.0025888733 = product of:
  0.03106648 = sum of:
    0.03106648 = weight(_text_:internet in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03106648 = score(doc=399,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.32290122 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Computer based systems can produce enourmous retrieval sets even when good search logic is used. Sometimes this is desirable, more often it is not. Appropriate filters can limit search results, but they represent only a partial solution. Simple ranking techniques are needed that are both effective and easily understood by the humans doing the searching. Optimal search output, whether from a traditional database or the Internet, will result when intuitive interfaces are designed that inspire confidence while making the necessary mathematics transparent. Weighted term searching using powers of 2, a technique proposed early in the history of information retrieval, can be simplifies and used in combination with modern graphics and textual input to achieve these results

Theme

Internet

0.0025756247 = product of:
  0.030907497 = sum of:
    0.030907497 = product of:
      0.061814994 = sum of:
        0.061814994 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061814994 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Source

Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58

0.0025756247 = product of:
  0.030907497 = sum of:
    0.030907497 = product of:
      0.061814994 = sum of:
        0.061814994 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061814994 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

11. 8.2001 16:22:19

0.0025756247 = product of:
  0.030907497 = sum of:
    0.030907497 = product of:
      0.061814994 = sum of:
        0.061814994 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061814994 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:43:54

0.0022647926 = product of:
  0.027177509 = sum of:
    0.027177509 = weight(_text_:internet in 6541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027177509 = score(doc=6541,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.28247973 = fieldWeight in 6541, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6541)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The growing number of networked information resources and services offers unprecedented opportunities for delivering high quality information to the computer desktop of a wide range of individuals. However, currently there is a reliance on a database retrieval model, in which endusers use keywords to search large collections of automatically indexed resources in order to find needed information. As an alternative to the database retrieval model, this paper outlines the classical digital library model, which is derived from traditional practices of library and information science professionals. These practices include the selection and organization of information resources for local populations of users and the integration of advanced information retrieval tools, such as databases and the Internet into these collections. To evaluate this model, library and information professionals and endusers involved with primary care medicine were asked to respond to a series of questions comparing their experiences with a digital library developed for the primary care population to their experiences with general Internet use. Preliminary results are reported

Theme

Internet

0.0022190344 = product of:
  0.02662841 = sum of:
    0.02662841 = weight(_text_:internet in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02662841 = score(doc=4546,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The literature of the evaluation of Internet search engines is reviewed. Although there have been many studies, there has been little consistency in the way such studies have been carried out. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that recall is virtually impossible to calculate in the fast changing Internet environment, and therefore the traditional Cranfield type of evaluation is not usually possible. A variety of alternative evaluation methods has been suggested to overcome this difficulty. The authors recommend that a standardised set of tools is developed for the evaluation of web search engines so that, in future, comparisons can be made between search engines more effectively, and that variations in performance of any given search engine over time can be tracked. The paper itself does not provide such a standard set of tools, but it investigates the issues and makes preliminary recommendations of the types of tools needed

0.0020921256 = product of:
  0.025105506 = sum of:
    0.025105506 = weight(_text_:internet in 1394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025105506 = score(doc=1394,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 1394, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1394)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

State of the art review of literature published about research and consultancy in library and information science (LIS). Issues covered include: scope and definitions of what constitutes research and consultancy; funding of research and development; national LIS research and the funding agencies; electronic libraries; document delivery; multimedia document delivery; the Z39.50 standard for client server computer architecture, the Internet and WWW; electronic publishing; information retrieval; evaluation and evaluation techniques; the Text Retrieval Conferences (TREC); the user domain; management issues; decision support systems; information politics and organizational culture; and value for money issues

0.001839732 = product of:
  0.022076784 = sum of:
    0.022076784 = product of:
      0.044153567 = sum of:
        0.044153567 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044153567 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

27. 2.1999 20:55:22

0.001839732 = product of:
  0.022076784 = sum of:
    0.022076784 = product of:
      0.044153567 = sum of:
        0.044153567 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044153567 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

27. 2.1999 20:59:22

0.001839732 = product of:
  0.022076784 = sum of:
    0.022076784 = product of:
      0.044153567 = sum of:
        0.044153567 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044153567 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11412105 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032588977 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Pages

S.22-25

0.0018306099 = product of:
  0.021967318 = sum of:
    0.021967318 = weight(_text_:internet in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021967318 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09621047 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032588977 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Theme

Internet