Search (89 results, page 1 of 5)

0.0754264 = product of:
  0.1508528 = sum of:
    0.1508528 = sum of:
      0.101708524 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101708524 = score(doc=2718,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
      0.049144268 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049144268 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2718, 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=2718)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A study of the number of irrelevant documents retrieved in a co-ordinate indexing system that does not employ eitherr roles or links. These tests were based on one hundred actual inquiries received in the library and therefore an evaluation of recall efficiency is not included. Over half the enquiries produced no noise, but the mean average percentage niose figure was approximately 33 per cent based on a total average retireval figure of eighteen documents per search. Details of the size of the indexed collection, methods of indexing, and an analysis of the reasons for the retrieval of irrelevant documents are discussed, thereby providing information officers who are thinking of installing such a system with some evidence on which to base a decision as to whether or not to utilize these devices

Source

Journal of documentation. 22(1966), S.203-209

0.056652397 = product of:
  0.113304794 = sum of:
    0.113304794 = sum of:
      0.07118113 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07118113 = score(doc=2552,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
      0.042123657 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042123657 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to examine interindexer consistency (the degree to which indexers, when assigning terms to a chosen record, will choose the same terms to reflect that record) in the PsycINFO database using 60 records that were inadvertently processed twice between 1996 and 1998. Five aspects of interindexer consistency were analysed. Two methods were used to calculate interindexer consistency: one posited by Hooper (1965) and the other by Rollin (1981). Aspects analysed were: checktag consistency (66.24% using Hooper's calculation and 77.17% using Rollin's); major-to-all term consistency (49.31% and 62.59% respectively); overall indexing consistency (49.02% and 63.32%); classification code consistency (44.17% and 45.00%); and major-to-major term consistency (43.24% and 56.09%). The average consistency across all categories was 50.4% using Hooper's method and 60.83% using Rollin's. Although comparison with previous studies is difficult due to methodological variations in the overall study of indexing consistency and the specific characteristics of the database, results generally support previous findings when trends and similar studies are analysed.

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.03884058 = product of:
  0.07768116 = sum of:
    0.07768116 = product of:
      0.15536232 = sum of:
        0.15536232 = weight(_text_:indexing in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15536232 = score(doc=956,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.78326553 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes a series of experiments with an interactive Chinese information retrieval system named CIRS and an interactive relational thesaurus. 2 important issues have been explored: whether thesauri enhance the retrieval effectiveness of Chinese documents, and whether automatic indexing can complete with manual indexing in a Chinese information retrieval system. Recall and precision are used to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the system. Statistical analysis of the recall and precision measures suggest that the use of the relational thesaurus does improve the retrieval effectiveness both in the automatic indexing environment and in the manual indexing environment and that automatic indexing is at least as good as manual indexing

0.03355511 = product of:
  0.06711022 = sum of:
    0.06711022 = product of:
      0.13422044 = sum of:
        0.13422044 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13422044 = score(doc=1849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 1849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.03355511 = product of:
  0.06711022 = sum of:
    0.06711022 = product of:
      0.13422044 = sum of:
        0.13422044 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13422044 = score(doc=4998,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.03329193 = product of:
  0.06658386 = sum of:
    0.06658386 = product of:
      0.13316771 = sum of:
        0.13316771 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13316771 = score(doc=6577,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.67137045 = fieldWeight in 6577, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6577)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes an experiment carried out in the City Archives of Oporto, Portugal to test the relative value for information retrieval of controling or not controlling vocabulary in subject indexing. A comparison was made of the results obtained by searching 2 databases covering the same archival documents, one of them without any control in the indexing language and the other with authority control. Results indicate that the database where authority control in subject indexing was used showed better performance and efficiency in information retrieval than the database which used an uncontrolled subject indexing language. A significant complementarity between the databases was found, the addition of the retrievals of one database to those of the other adding considerable advantage. Posits the possibility of creating an archival authority list suitable for use in groups with identical characteristics, such as local archives of judicial groups. Such a list should include broader terms, representing subject classes, which will be subdivided into narrower terms, according to the particular needs of each archives or archival groups

0.032826282 = product of:
  0.065652564 = sum of:
    0.065652564 = product of:
      0.13130513 = sum of:
        0.13130513 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13130513 = score(doc=6634,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.6619802 = fieldWeight in 6634, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The indexing vocabulary is an important determinant of success in text retrieval. Researchers have compared the effectiveness of indexing using free text and controlled vocabularies in a variety of text contexts. A number of studies have investigated the relative merits of free-text, MeSH and UMLS metathesaurus indexing vocabularies for MEDLINE document indexing. Controlled vocabularies offer no advantages in retrieval performance over free text. Offers a detailed analysis of prior results and their underlying experimental designs. Offers results from a new experiment assessing 8 different retrieval strategies. Results indicate that MeSH does have an important role in text retrieval

0.031457912 = product of:
  0.062915824 = sum of:
    0.062915824 = product of:
      0.12583165 = sum of:
        0.12583165 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12583165 = score(doc=3250,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.6343854 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.

0.030822333 = product of:
  0.061644666 = sum of:
    0.061644666 = product of:
      0.12328933 = sum of:
        0.12328933 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12328933 = score(doc=4311,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.6215682 = fieldWeight in 4311, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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?

0.02936072 = product of:
  0.05872144 = sum of:
    0.05872144 = product of:
      0.11744288 = sum of:
        0.11744288 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11744288 = score(doc=1896,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02936072 = product of:
  0.05872144 = sum of:
    0.05872144 = product of:
      0.11744288 = sum of:
        0.11744288 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11744288 = score(doc=1053,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper evaluates and compares the retrieval effectiveness of various search models, based on either automatic text-word indexing or on manually assigned controlled descriptors. Retrieval is from a relatively large collection of bibliographic material written in French. Moreover, for this French collection we evaluate improvements that result from combining automatic and manual indexing. First, when considering various contexts, this study reveals that the combined indexing strategy always obtains the best retrieval performance. Second, when users wish to conduct exhaustive searches with minimal effort, we demonstrate that manually assigned terms are essential. Third, the evaluations presented in this paper study reveal the comparative retrieval performances that result from manual and automatic indexing in a variety of circumstances.

0.029059576 = product of:
  0.05811915 = sum of:
    0.05811915 = product of:
      0.1162383 = sum of:
        0.1162383 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1162383 = score(doc=5072,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 5072, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Comments on the relative rarity of research articles on theoretical aspects of subject indexing in computerised retrieval systems and the predominance of articles on software packages and hardware. Concludes that controlled indexing still has a future but points to major differences from the past

0.025427131 = product of:
  0.050854262 = sum of:
    0.050854262 = product of:
      0.101708524 = sum of:
        0.101708524 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.101708524 = score(doc=3251,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 3251, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines the effectiveness of automated indexing and presents the results of a study of information retrieval from a segment (40.000 items) of the ULB Düsseldorf database. The segment was selected randomly and all the documents included were indexed automatically. The search topics included 50 subject areas ranging from economic growth to alternative energy sources. While there were 876 relevant documents in the database segment for each of the 50 search topics, the recall ranged from 1 to 244 references, with the average being 17.52 documents per topic. Therefore it seems that, in the immediate future, automatic indexing should be used in combination with intellectual indexing

0.025427131 = product of:
  0.050854262 = sum of:
    0.050854262 = product of:
      0.101708524 = sum of:
        0.101708524 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.101708524 = score(doc=1174,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 1174, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1174)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The test ran between Nov 95-Aug 96 in Cologne Fachhochschule fur Bibliothekswesen (College of Librarianship).The test basis was a database of 190,000 book titles published between 1990-95. MILOS II mechanized indexing methods proved helpful in avoiding or reducing numbers of unsatisfied/no result retrieval searches. Retrieval from mechanised indexing is 3 times more successful than from title keyword data. MILOS II also used a standardized semantic vocabulary. Mechanised indexing demands high quality software and output data

0.025166333 = product of:
  0.050332665 = sum of:
    0.050332665 = product of:
      0.10066533 = sum of:
        0.10066533 = weight(_text_:indexing in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10066533 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025166333 = product of:
  0.050332665 = sum of:
    0.050332665 = product of:
      0.10066533 = sum of:
        0.10066533 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10066533 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025166333 = product of:
  0.050332665 = sum of:
    0.050332665 = product of:
      0.10066533 = sum of:
        0.10066533 = weight(_text_:indexing in 7529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10066533 = score(doc=7529,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 7529, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7529)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.025166333 = product of:
  0.050332665 = sum of:
    0.050332665 = product of:
      0.10066533 = sum of:
        0.10066533 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10066533 = score(doc=5202,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5075084 = fieldWeight in 5202, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we report research on an algorithmic approach to alleviating search uncertainty in a large information space. Grounded on object filtering, automatic indexing, and co-occurence analysis, we performed a large-scale experiment using a parallel supercomputer (SGI Power Challenge) to analyze 400.000+ abstracts in an INSPEC computer engineering collection. Two system-generated thesauri, one based on a combined object filtering and automatic indexing method, and the other based on automatic indexing only, were compaed with the human-generated INSPEC subject thesaurus. Our user evaluation revealed that the system-generated thesauri were better than the INSPEC thesaurus in 'concept recall', but in 'concept precision' the 3 thesauri were comparable. Our analysis also revealed that the terms suggested by the 3 thesauri were complementary and could be used to significantly increase 'variety' in search terms the thereby reduce search uncertainty

0.024572134 = product of:
  0.049144268 = sum of:
    0.049144268 = product of:
      0.098288536 = sum of:
        0.098288536 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098288536 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, 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=262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20.10.2000 12:22:23

0.024572134 = product of:
  0.049144268 = sum of:
    0.049144268 = product of:
      0.098288536 = sum of:
        0.098288536 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098288536 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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