Search (1210 results, page 1 of 61)

0.26586226 = product of:
  0.5317245 = sum of:
    0.46538588 = weight(_text_:judge in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.46538588 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        1.0250188 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
    0.066338606 = weight(_text_:und in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066338606 = score(doc=73,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13024996 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.50931764 = fieldWeight in 73, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=73)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Klassifikation und Erkenntnis I. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 1 "Klassifikation und Wissensgewinnung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979

0.2292732 = product of:
  0.9170928 = sum of:
    0.9170928 = weight(_text_:harmon in 5197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.9170928 = score(doc=5197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        1.6615034 = fieldWeight in 5197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.1678955 = product of:
  0.335791 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
    0.025533738 = weight(_text_:und in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025533738 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13024996 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.19603643 = fieldWeight in 1114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1114)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 44(2020) H.1, S.34-53

0.11634647 = product of:
  0.46538588 = sum of:
    0.46538588 = weight(_text_:judge in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.46538588 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        1.0250188 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Public library quarterly 15(1996) no.1, S.65-66 (A.L. Judge)

0.1146366 = product of:
  0.4585464 = sum of:
    0.4585464 = weight(_text_:harmon in 6503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4585464 = score(doc=6503,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.8307517 = fieldWeight in 6503, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6503)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.1146366 = product of:
  0.4585464 = sum of:
    0.4585464 = weight(_text_:harmon in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4585464 = score(doc=1136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.8307517 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.104934685 = product of:
  0.20986937 = sum of:
    0.19391078 = weight(_text_:judge in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19391078 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.42709115 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
    0.015958587 = weight(_text_:und in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015958587 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13024996 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.12252277 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 44(2020) H.3, S.516-529

0.100307025 = product of:
  0.4012281 = sum of:
    0.4012281 = weight(_text_:harmon in 398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.4012281 = score(doc=398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.72690773 = fieldWeight in 398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=398)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.08597746 = product of:
  0.34390983 = sum of:
    0.34390983 = weight(_text_:harmon in 1299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.34390983 = score(doc=1299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.6230638 = fieldWeight in 1299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.08597746 = product of:
  0.34390983 = sum of:
    0.34390983 = weight(_text_:harmon in 3110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.34390983 = score(doc=3110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.6230638 = fieldWeight in 3110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3110)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.08597746 = product of:
  0.34390983 = sum of:
    0.34390983 = weight(_text_:harmon in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.34390983 = score(doc=3040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.55196565 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.6230638 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.398883 = idf(docFreq=9, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=5025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 5025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5025)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Abstracts enable users to judge the relevance of articles, provide a summary and may be a substitute for the original document. Defines abstracts and considers who they are written be according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other sources. Distinguishes between indicative and informative abstracts. Informative abstracts are preferred by ANSI and ERIC. Discusses the content and procedures for abstracting, writing style, tests of quality and readability and informativeness. Presents statistics analyzing abstracts from 3 general interest databases and on abstract length and type

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 7870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=7870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 7870, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7870)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the information explosion and poses the question of whether the explosion is driving an equal and opposite information implosion. Uses 4 criteria to judge whether available information has become better or worse: cost, ease or difficulty of access; variety of sources; and clarity. Concludes that none of these have improved over the last generation

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=1153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 1153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1153)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Präsentation folgender Gestaltungsprinzipien: (1) Help the user develop an understanding of the operation of the interface and the search process; (2) Provide information to help users judge the value of continuing a search path; (3) Assist the user in refining the search query or search topic; (4) Provide verbal labels suggestive of meaning

0.077564314 = product of:
  0.31025726 = sum of:
    0.31025726 = weight(_text_:judge in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31025726 = score(doc=3816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.68334585 = fieldWeight in 3816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3816)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.068557814 = product of:
  0.27423126 = sum of:
    0.27423126 = weight(_text_:judge in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27423126 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.6039981 = fieldWeight in 197, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=197)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) provides a TREC-like platform for evaluating content-oriented XML retrieval systems. Since 2007, INEX has been using a set of precision-recall based metrics for its ad hoc tasks. The authors investigate the reliability and robustness of these focused retrieval measures, and of the INEX pooling method. They explore four specific questions: How reliable are the metrics when assessments are incomplete, or when query sets are small? What is the minimum pool/query-set size that can be used to reliably evaluate systems? Can the INEX collections be used to fairly evaluate "new" systems that did not participate in the pooling process? And, for a fixed amount of assessment effort, would this effort be better spent in thoroughly judging a few queries, or in judging many queries relatively superficially? The authors' findings validate properties of precision-recall-based metrics observed in document retrieval settings. Early precision measures are found to be more error-prone and less stable under incomplete judgments and small topic-set sizes. They also find that system rankings remain largely unaffected even when assessment effort is substantially (but systematically) reduced, and confirm that the INEX collections remain usable when evaluating nonparticipating systems. Finally, they observe that for a fixed amount of effort, judging shallow pools for many queries is better than judging deep pools for a smaller set of queries. However, when judging only a random sample of a pool, it is better to completely judge fewer topics than to partially judge many topics. This result confirms the effectiveness of pooling methods.

0.06786877 = product of:
  0.27147508 = sum of:
    0.27147508 = weight(_text_:judge in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27147508 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The need for criteria by which to judge the adequacy of an abstract is felt most strongly when evaluating machine-produced abstracts. In order to develop a set of criteria, a survey was conducted of the instructions prepared by various scientific publications as a guide to their abstracters in the preparation of copy. One-hundred-and-thirty sets of instructions were analyzed and compared as to their function, content, and form. It was concluded that, while differences in subject matter do not necessarily require different kinds of abstracts, there are significant variations between the informative and the indicative abstract. A set of criteria for the writing of an acceptable abstract of science literature was derived. The adequacy of these criteria is still to be validated, and the athors' plans for fututre research in this area are specified

0.06786877 = product of:
  0.27147508 = sum of:
    0.27147508 = weight(_text_:judge in 4844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27147508 = score(doc=4844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 4844, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4844)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Replicates a previous study by Eisenberg and Hu regarding users' perceptions of the binary or dichotomous nature of their relevance judgements. The studies examined the assumptions that searchers divide documents evenly into relevant and nonrelevant. 35 staff, faculty and doctoral students at Michigan Univ., School of Education and Dept. of Psychology conducted searchers and the retrieved documents submitted to the searchers in 3 incremental versions: title only; title and abstract; title, abstract and indexing information: At each stage the subjects were asked to judge the relevance of the document to the query. The findings support the earlier study and the break points between relevance and nonrelevance was not at or near 50%

0.06786877 = product of:
  0.27147508 = sum of:
    0.27147508 = weight(_text_:judge in 7418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27147508 = score(doc=7418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45402667 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.058726728 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 7418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7418)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers two kinds of queries that may be applied to a database. The first is a query written by a searcher to express an information need. The second is a request for documents most similar to a document already judge relevant by the searcher. Examines the effectiveness of these two procedures and shows that in important cases the latter query types is more effective than the former. This provides a new view of the cluster hypothesis and a justification for document neighbouring procedures. If all the documents in a database have readily available precomputed nearest neighbours, a new search algorithm, called parallel neighbourhood searching. Shows that this feedback-based method provides significant improvement in recall over traditional linear searching methods, and appears superior to traditional feedback methods in overall performance