Search (13480 results, page 2 of 674)

0.0750074 = product of:
  0.3000296 = sum of:
    0.3000296 = weight(_text_:judge in 4295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3000296 = score(doc=4295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 4295, 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=4295)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports on one area of research in an Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) MODELS (MOving to Distributed Environments for Library Services) supporting study in 3 investigative areas: examination of current database producers' guidelines for their abstract writers; a brief survey of abstracts in some traditional online databases; and a detailed survey of abstracts from 3 types of electronic database (print sourced online databases, Internet subject trees or directories, and Internet gateways). Examination of database producers' guidelines, reported here, gave a clear view of the intentions behind professionally produced traditional (printed index based) database abstracts and provided a benchmark against which to judge the conclusions of the larger investigations into abstract style, readability and content

0.0750074 = product of:
  0.3000296 = sum of:
    0.3000296 = weight(_text_:judge in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3000296 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 2851, 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=2851)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reports the design of a Chinese test collection with multilingual queries and the application of this test collection to evaluate information retrieval Systems. The effective indexing units, IR models, translation techniques, and query expansion for Chinese text retrieval are identified. The collaboration of East Asian countries for construction of test collections for cross-language multilingual text retrieval is also discussed in this paper. As well, a tool is designed to help assessors judge relevante and gather the events of relevante judgment. The log file created by this tool will be used to analyze the behaviors of assessors in the future.

0.0750074 = product of:
  0.3000296 = sum of:
    0.3000296 = weight(_text_:judge in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3000296 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 2162, 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=2162)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

OFTEN LIBRARIES TRY TO ASSESS DIGITAL LIBRARY SERVICE for their user populations in comprehensive terms that judge its overall success or failure. This article's key assumption is that the people involved must be understood before services can be assessed, especially if evaluators and developers intend to improve a digital library product. Its argument is simply that anthropology can provide the initial understanding, the intellectual basis, on which informed choices about sample population, survey design, or focus group selection can reasonably be made. As an example, this article analyzes the National Gallery of the Spoken Word (NGSW). It includes brief descriptions of nine NGSW micro-cultures and three pairs of dichotomies within these micro-cultures.

0.07295212 = product of:
  0.14590424 = sum of:
    0.017637154 = weight(_text_:und in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017637154 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14395002 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.12252277 = fieldWeight in 3794, 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=3794)
    0.1282671 = weight(_text_:having in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1282671 = score(doc=3794,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3881996 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews Ranganathan's description of subject from mathematical angle. Ranganathan was highly influenced by Nineteenth Century mathematician George Cantor and he used the concept of infinity in developing an axiomatic interpretation of subject. Majority of library scientists interpreted the concept of subject merely as a term or descriptor or heading to include the same in cataloguing and subject indexing. Some library scientists interpreted subject on the basis of document, i.e. from the angle of the concept of aboutness or epistemological potential of the document etc. Some people explained subject from the viewpoint of social, cultural or socio-cultural process. Attempts were made to describe subject from epistemological viewpoint. But S R Ranganathan was the first to develop an axiomatic concept of subject on its own. He built up an independent idea of subject that is ubiquitously pervasive with human cognition process. To develop the basic foundation of subject, he used the mathematical concepts of infinity and infinitesimal and construed the set of subjects or universe of subjects as continuous infinite universe. The subject may also exist in extremely micro-form, which was termed as spot subject and analogized with point, which is dimensionless having only an existence. The influence of Twentieth Century physicist George Gamow on Ranganathan's thought has also been discussed.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zu Leben und Werk von S.R. Ranganathan.

0.07255882 = product of:
  0.29023528 = sum of:
    0.29023528 = weight(_text_:having in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29023528 = score(doc=5107,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3881996 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.7476445 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes how journalists can become empowered by having access to online sources. However, there is a low rate of take-up, partly bacause of ignorance and partly because of cost, which is prohibitive to freelancers. Even where journalists do have access to online databases they seldom have the necessary searching skills. Highlights the need for training, and the desirability of having a professional online researcher on the team as backup

0.07255882 = product of:
  0.29023528 = sum of:
    0.29023528 = weight(_text_:having in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29023528 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3881996 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.7476445 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although databases having highly structured records, with numerous searchable and displayable fields, including detailed subject indexing, are substantially more expensive to produce than databases having unstructured text, the increased cost is more than justified by the improved ease by which users can find information. Concludes that the increased costs can be recouped by the higher prices that the market will bear for these improved products

0.07255882 = product of:
  0.29023528 = sum of:
    0.29023528 = weight(_text_:having in 6501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29023528 = score(doc=6501,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3881996 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.7476445 = fieldWeight in 6501, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6501)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines the issue of outsourcing to obtain the shelf ready book from the aspect of public services and the viewpoint of a library administrator. Questions the necessity of having totally in house cataloguing. Highlights the advantages of having outside cataloguing and supplementary services. Outsourcing should not replace cataloguing departments but be dependent on circumstances. The main reasons for its implementation should be improved services rather than financial savings

0.07255882 = product of:
  0.29023528 = sum of:
    0.29023528 = weight(_text_:having in 3492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29023528 = score(doc=3492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3881996 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.7476445 = fieldWeight in 3492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3492)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the problems associated with the management of knowledge and electronic information and the provision of access within organizations. Emphasizes the fact that having information does not equate with having knowledge and that locating information is only worthwhile if it can be interpreted and used to benefit the organization. Offers some solutions in the form of scanning technology and tools to codify language

0.069661975 = product of:
  0.13932395 = sum of:
    0.012346008 = weight(_text_:und in 1127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012346008 = score(doc=1127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14395002 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.085765935 = fieldWeight in 1127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1127)
    0.12697794 = weight(_text_:having in 1127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12697794 = score(doc=1127,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3881996 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.32709447 = fieldWeight in 1127, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1127)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Chapter 5 empirically tackles the first of the two research questions formulated above, namely the question of global collection statistics. More precisely, it studies possibilities of radically simplified results merging. The simplification comes from the attempt - without having knowledge of the complete collection - to equip all peers with the same global statistics, making document scores comparable across peers. Chapter 5 empirically tackles the first of the two research questions formulated above, namely the question of global collection statistics. More precisely, it studies possibilities of radically simplified results merging. The simplification comes from the attempt - without having knowledge of the complete collection - to equip all peers with the same global statistics, making document scores comparable across peers. What is examined, is the question of how we can obtain such global statistics and to what extent their use will lead to a drop in retrieval effectiveness. In chapter 6, the second research question is tackled, namely that of making forwarding decisions for queries, based on profiles of other peers. After a review of related work in that area, the chapter first defines the approaches that will be compared against each other. Then, a novel evaluation framework is introduced, including a new measure for comparing results of a distributed search engine against those of a centralised one. Finally, the actual evaluation is performed using the new framework.

Imprint

Leipzig : Universität / Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik Institut für Informatik

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 2445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=2445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 2445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2445)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 3299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=3299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3299)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

State of the art review of the criteria used to judge and evaluate the quality of databases, including: content, ease of use, accessibility, customer support, documentation, and value to cost ratio. Concludes that the principle factor governing quality is content, defined by the scope and the coverage of the database and its currency, accuracy, consistency and completeness. Scope is determined by its composition and coverage, including time period, number of periodicals and other primary sources, number of articles and geographic and language distribution. Currency is measured by the time lag between publication of the primary source and availability of the corresponding records in the database. Accuracy is governed by the extent to which the records are free from errors of all types. Consistency depends on the extent to which records within the database follow the same rules. Completeness is measured by the consistency with which applicable data elements are assigned to all the records in the database. Reviews the major contributions to the literature in the field and summarizes the background of milestone studies

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=3210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this report, we investigate how retrieving information can be improved through task-related indexing of documents based an ontologies. Different index types, varying from content-based keywords to structured task based indexing ontologies, are compared in an experiment that simulates the task of creating instructional material from a database of source material. To be able to judge the added value of task- and ontology-related indexes, traditional information retrieval performance measures are extended with new measures reflecting the quality of the material produced with the retrieved information. The results of the experiment show that a structured task-based indexing ontology improves the quality of the product created from retrieved material only to some extent, but that it certainly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of search and retrieval and precision of use.

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 3235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=3235,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 3235, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3235)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article describes a collaboratively engineered general-purpose knowledge management (KM) ontology that can be used by practitioners, researchers, and educators. The ontology is formally characterized in terms of nearly one hundred definitions and axioms that evolved from a Delphi-like process involving a diverse panel of over 30 KM practitioners and researchers. The ontology identifies and relates knowledge manipulation activities that an entity (e.g., an organization) can perform to operate an knowledge resources. It introduces a taxonomy for these resources, which indicates classes of knowledge that may be stored, embedded, and/or represented in an entity. It recognizes factors that influence the conduct of KM both within and across KM episodes. The Delphi panelists judge the ontology favorably overall: its ability to unify KM concepts, its comprehensiveness, and utility. Moreover, various implications of the ontology for the KM field are examined as indicators of its utility for practitioners, educators, and researchers.

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this issue Maglaughin and Sonnenwald provided 12 graduate students with searches related to the student's work and asked them to judge the twenty most recent retrieved representations by highlighting passages thought to contribute to relevance, marking out passages detracting from relevance, and providing a relevant, partially relevant or relevant judgement on each. By recorded interview they were asked about how these decisions were made and to describe the three classes of judgement. The union of criteria identified in past studies did not seem to fully capture the information supplied so a new set was produced and coding agreement found to be adequate. Twenty-nine criteria were identified and grouped into six categories based upon the focus of the criterion. Multiple criteria are used for most judgements, and most criteria may have either a positive or negative effect. Content was the most frequently mentioned criterion.

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=330)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explicates the common ground between two currently independent fields of inquiry, namely information arts and information science, and suggests a framework that could unite them as a single field of study. The article defines and clarifies the meaning of information art and presents an axiological framework that could be used to judge the value of works of information art. The axiological framework is applied to examples of works of information art to demonstrate its use. The article argues that both information arts and information science could be studied under a common framework; namely, the domain-analytic or sociocognitive approach. It also is argued that the unification of the two fields could help enhance the meaning and scope of both information science and information arts and therefore be beneficial to both fields.

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=1938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 1938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1938)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article introduces a new task-based evaluation measure called Relevance Prediction that is a more intuitive measure of an individual's performance on a real-world task than interannotator agreement. Relevance Prediction parallels what a user does in the real world task of browsing a set of documents using standard search tools, i.e., the user judges relevance based on a short summary and then that same user - not an independent user - decides whether to open (and judge) the corresponding document. This measure is shown to be a more reliable measure of task performance than LDC Agreement, a current gold-standard based measure used in the summarization evaluation community. Our goal is to provide a stable framework within which developers of new automatic measures may make stronger statistical statements about the effectiveness of their measures in predicting summary usefulness. We demonstrate - as a proof-of-concept methodology for automatic metric developers - that a current automatic evaluation measure has a better correlation with Relevance Prediction than with LDC Agreement and that the significance level for detected differences is higher for the former than for the latter.

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The potential of summary personalization is high, because a summary that would be useless to decide the relevance of a document if summarized in a generic manner, may be useful if the right sentences are selected that match the user interest. In this paper we defend the use of a personalized summarization facility to maximize the density of relevance of selections sent by a personalized information system to a given user. The personalization is applied to the digital newspaper domain and it used a user-model that stores long and short term interests using four reference systems: sections, categories, keywords and feedback terms. On the other side, it is crucial to measure how much information is lost during the summarization process, and how this information loss may affect the ability of the user to judge the relevance of a given document. The results obtained in two personalization systems show that personalized summaries perform better than generic and generic-personalized summaries in terms of identifying documents that satisfy user preferences. We also considered a user-centred direct evaluation that showed a high level of user satisfaction with the summaries.

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 1970, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1970)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a study of relevance feedback in a cross-language information retrieval environment. We have performed an experiment in which Portuguese speakers are asked to judge the relevance of English documents; documents hand-translated to Portuguese and documents automatically translated to Portuguese. The goals of the experiment were to answer two questions (i) how well can native Portuguese searchers recognise relevant documents written in English, compared to documents that are hand translated and automatically translated to Portuguese; and (ii) what is the impact of misjudged documents on the performance improvement that can be achieved by relevance feedback. Surprisingly, the results show that machine translation is as effective as hand translation in aiding users to assess relevance in the experiment. In addition, the impact of misjudged documents on the performance of RF is overall just moderate, and varies greatly for different query topics.

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 2998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=2998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 2998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2998)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since millions seek health information online, it is vital for this information to be comprehensible. Most studies use readability formulas, which ignore vocabulary, and conclude that online health information is too difficult. We developed a vocabularly-based, naïve Bayes classifier to distinguish between three difficulty levels in text. It proved 98% accurate in a 250-document evaluation. We compared our classifier with readability formulas for 90 new documents with different origins and asked representative human evaluators, an expert and a consumer, to judge each document. Average readability grade levels for educational and commercial pages was 10th grade or higher, too difficult according to current literature. In contrast, the classifier showed that 70-90% of these pages were written at an intermediate, appropriate level indicating that vocabulary usage is frequently appropriate in text considered too difficult by readability formula evaluations. The expert considered the pages more difficult for a consumer than the consumer did.

0.06429206 = product of:
  0.25716823 = sum of:
    0.25716823 = weight(_text_:judge in 842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25716823 = score(doc=842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5017825 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06490377 = queryNorm
        0.5125094 = fieldWeight in 842, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=842)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Users intuitively know which documents are relevant when they see them. Formal relevance assessment, however, is a complex issue. In this entry relevance assessment are described both from a human perspective and a systems perspective. Humans judge relevance in terms of the relation between the documents retrieved and the way in which these documents are understood and used. This is a subjective and personal judgment and is called user relevance. Systems compute a function between the query and the document features that the systems builders believe will cause documents to be ranked by the likelihood that a user will find the documents relevant. This is an objective measurement of relevance in terms of relations between the query and the documents retrieved-this is called system relevance (or sometimes similarity).