Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0498127 = product of:
  0.124531746 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=1084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
    0.07611368 = weight(_text_:index in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07611368 = score(doc=1084,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

An important stage in the process of retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objetcs; an operation that is usually undertaken manually such as the allocation of subject index terms to documents. Reports results of a study in which several different sets of hypertext links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full text documents. The similarity between the members of each pair of link sets was then evaluated. Results indicated that little similarity existed among the link sets, a finding comparable with those of studies of inter indexer consistency, which suggests that there is generally only a low level of agreemenet between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by indexers. Concludes with that part of the study designed to test the validity of making these kinds of assumptions in the context of hypertext link sets

0.03469106 = product of:
  0.08672766 = sum of:
    0.06342807 = weight(_text_:index in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06342807 = score(doc=4214,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

An important stage in the process or retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objects; this operation is often undertaken manually, just as index terms are often manually assigned to documents in a conventional retrieval system. In an earlier article (1994), the results were published of a study in which several different sets of links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full-text documents. These results showed little similarity between the link-sets, a finding that was comparable with those of studies of inter-indexer consistency, which suggest that there is generally only a low level of agreement between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by different indexers. In this article, a description is provided of an investigation into the nature of the relationship existing between (i) the levels of inter-linker consistency obtaining among the group of hypertext databases used in our earlier experiments, and (ii) the levels of effectiveness of a number of searches carried out in those databases. An account is given of the implementation of the searches and of the methods used in the calculation of numerical values expressing their effectiveness. Analysis of the results of a comparison between recorded levels of consistency and those of effectiveness does not allow us to draw conclusions about the consistency - effectiveness relationship that are equivalent to those drawn in comparable studies of inter-indexer consistency

0.027260004 = product of:
  0.068150006 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 7493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=7493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 7493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7493)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 7493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=7493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 7493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7493)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In important stage in the process of retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of inter-nodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objects; this operation is often undertaken manually, just as index terms are often manually assigned to documents in a conventional retrieval system. Studies of conventional systems have suggested that a degree of consistency in the terms assigned to documents by indexers is positively associated with retrieval effectiveness. It is thus of interest to investigate the consistency of assignment of links in separate hypertext versions of the same full-text document, since a measure of agreement may be related to the subsequent utility of the resulting hypertext databases. The calculation of values indicating the degree of similarity between objects is a technique that has been widely used in the fields of textual and chemical information retrieval; in this paper we describe the application of arithmetic coefficients and topological indices to the measurement of the degree of similarity between the sets of inter-nodal links in hypertext databases. We publish the results of a study in which several different of links are inserted, by different people, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full-text documents. Our results show little similary between the sets of links identified by different people; this finding is comparable with those of studies of inter-indexer consistency, where it has been found that there is generally only a low level of agreement between the sets of idenx terms assigned to a document by different indexers

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 2706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=2706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 2706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2706)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0107641 = product of:
  0.0538205 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 6716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=6716,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 6716, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6716)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Describes the use of a variety of similarity coefficients in the measurement of the degree of similarity between objects that contain textual information, such as documents, paragraphs, index terms or queries. The work is intended as a preliminary to future investigation of the calculations involved in measuring the degree of similarity between structured objects that may be represented by graph theoretic forms. Descusses the role of similarity coefficients in text retrieval in terms of: document and query similarity; document and document similarity; cocitation analysis; term and term similarity; and the similarity between sets of judgements, such as relevance judgements. Describes several methods for expressing the formulae used to define similarity coefficients and compares their attributes. Concludes with details the characteristics of similarity coefficients; equivalence and monotonicity; consideration of negative matches; geometric analyses; and the meaning of correlation coefficients

0.005648775 = product of:
  0.028243875 = sum of:
    0.028243875 = weight(_text_:context in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028243875 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.16027321 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

As digital libraries become a major source of information for many people, we need to know more about how people seek and retrieve information in digital environments. Quite commonly, users with a problem-at-hand and associated question-in-mind repeatedly search a literature for answers, and seek information in stages over extended periods from a variety of digital information resources. The process of repeatedly searching over time in relation to a specific, but possibly an evolving information problem (including changes or shifts in a variety of variables), is called the successive search phenomenon. The study outlined in this paper is currently investigating this new and little explored line of inquiry for information retrieval, Web searching, and digital libraries. The purpose of the research project is to investigate the nature, manifestations, and behavior of successive searching by users in digital environments, and to derive criteria for use in the design of information retrieval interfaces and systems supporting successive searching behavior. This study includes two related projects. The first project is based in the School of Library and Information Sciences at the University of North Texas and is funded by a National Science Foundation POWRE Grant <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/show?award=9753277>. The second project is based at the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield (UK) and is funded by a grant from the British Library <http://www.shef. ac.uk/~is/research/imrg/uncerty.html> Research and Innovation Center. The broad objectives of each project are to examine the nature and extent of successive search episodes in digital environments by real users over time. The specific aim of the current project is twofold: * To characterize progressive changes and shifts that occur in: user situational context; user information problem; uncertainty reduction; user cognitive styles; cognitive and affective states of the user, and consequently in their queries; and * To characterize related changes over time in the type and use of information resources and search strategies particularly related to given capabilities of IR systems, and IR search engines, and examine changes in users' relevance judgments and criteria, and characterize their differences. The study is an observational, longitudinal data collection in the U.S. and U.K. Three questionnaires are used to collect data: reference, client post search and searcher post search questionnaires. Each successive search episode with a search intermediary for textual materials on the DIALOG Information Service is audiotaped and search transaction logs are recorded. Quantitative analysis includes statistical analysis using Likert scale data from the questionnaires and log-linear analysis of sequential data. Qualitative methods include: content analysis, structuring taxonomies; and diagrams to describe shifts and transitions within and between each search episode. Outcomes of the study are the development of appropriate model(s) for IR interactions in successive search episodes and the derivation of a set of design criteria for interfaces and systems supporting successive searching.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=5233,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Ellis, et alia, now provide part five of their study on mediated searching which is treated separately here because of the presence of additional authors. The data source remains cases collected from 198 individuals, 87 in Texas and 111 in Sheffield in the U.K. but the focus here is on seeker/intermediary interaction utilizing the Saracevic triadic IR model, and the method is the analysis of discourse. While the pre-search interview stressed problem definition, interaction during the search in terms of relevance and magnitude continued to develop the problem statement. The user and intermediary focused on search tactics, review and relevance, while the intermediary interaction with the system was comprised of terminology and answers. The interaction clearly affected the search process. Users and intermediaries considered the process effective and users felt the intermediary increased their overall satisfaction.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article gives a cheerfully brief and undetailed account of how to make a faceted classification system, then describes information retrieval and searching on the web. It concludes by saying that facets would be excellent in helping users search and browse the web, but offers no real clues as to how this can be done.

0.0054254006 = product of:
  0.027127001 = sum of:
    0.027127001 = product of:
      0.081381 = sum of:
        0.081381 = weight(_text_:29 in 4657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081381 = score(doc=4657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4657, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4657)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of information science. 31(2005) no.1, S.29-

0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=3003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3003, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3003)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The problem of measurement in information retrieval research is traced to its source in the first retrieval tests. The problem is seen as presenting a chronic dilemma for the field. This dilemma has taken 3 forms as the discipline has evloved: (1) the dilemma of measurement in the archetypal approach: stated relevance versus user relevance; (2) the dilemma of measurement in the probabilistic approach: realism versus formalism; and (3) the dilemma of measurement in the Information Retrieval-Expert System (IR-ES) approach: linear measures of relevance versus logarithmic measures of knowledge. It is argued that the dilemma of measurement has remained intractable even given the different assumptions of the different approaches for 3 connecte reasons - the nature of the subject matter of the field; the nature of relevance jidgement; and the nature of cognition and knowledge. Finally, it is concluded that the original vision of information retrieval research as a discipline founded on quantification proved restricting for its theoretical and methodological development and that increasing recognition of this is reflected in growing interest in qualitative methods in information retrieval research in relation to cognitive, behavioral, and affective aspects of the information retrieval interaction

0.0030723398 = product of:
  0.015361699 = sum of:
    0.015361699 = product of:
      0.046085097 = sum of:
        0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046085097 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

26. 7.2002 20:22:46

0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 5242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=5242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5242, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5242)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:29:18