Search (13196 results, page 1 of 660)

0.26495382 = product of:
  0.52990764 = sum of:
    0.46379572 = weight(_text_:judge in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.46379572 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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)
    0.06611193 = weight(_text_:und in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06611193 = score(doc=73,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12980491 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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

0.16732183 = product of:
  0.33464366 = sum of:
    0.30919716 = weight(_text_:judge in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30919716 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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)
    0.025446491 = weight(_text_:und in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025446491 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12980491 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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

0.16254354 = product of:
  0.32508707 = sum of:
    0.2705475 = weight(_text_:judge in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2705475 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 749, 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=749)
    0.054539554 = weight(_text_:und in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054539554 = score(doc=749,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12980491 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.42016557 = fieldWeight in 749, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=749)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SCHEELE, M. Der Mensch als Voraussetzung und als Ziel der Klassifikationsforschung; JUDGE, A.J.N.: Representation of sets: the role of number; DAHLBERG, W.: Zur Geometrie der Grundbegriffe; MERTENS, P.: Die Theorie der Mustererkennung in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften; HANSERT, E.: Statistik als Methodik zur Konstruktion von Wissen; SCHWENDTKE; A.: Wissenschaftssystematik und Scientometrologie; HENRICHS, N.: Gegenstandstheoretische Grundlagen der Bibliotheksklassifikation?; FUGMANN, R. u. J.H. WINTER: Durch mechanisierte Klassifikation zum Analogieschluss; GREITER, F., G. GUTTMANN, E. OESER: Die Rolle der Klassifikation bei der Entwicklung und Bewertung neuer Produkte

0.116820596 = product of:
  0.46728238 = sum of:
    0.46728238 = weight(_text_:hiding in 4802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.46728238 = score(doc=4802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.556246 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.8400643 = fieldWeight in 4802, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4802)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recall, the proortion of the relevant documents retrieved, is a key indicator of the performance of an information retrieval system. With large information systems, like the WWW, recal is almost impossible to measure or estimate by all standard techniques. Proposes an 'needle hiding' technique for measuring recall under these circumstances. Shows that ranking by relative recall does not have to be isomorphic to ranking by recall and hence the use of relative recall for comparative evaluation might not be entirely sound

0.11594893 = product of:
  0.46379572 = sum of:
    0.46379572 = weight(_text_:judge in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.46379572 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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)

0.10457613 = product of:
  0.20915227 = sum of:
    0.19324821 = weight(_text_:judge in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19324821 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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)
    0.015904058 = weight(_text_:und in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015904058 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12980491 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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

0.087615445 = product of:
  0.35046178 = sum of:
    0.35046178 = weight(_text_:hiding in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.35046178 = score(doc=3322,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.556246 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.6300482 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The introduction of computerized post-coordination has solved many of the problems of pre-coordinated subject access. However, the adoption of computerized post-coordination results in the loss of some pre-coordination benefits. Specifically, the effect of hiding terms within the context of others is lost in post-coodination which give lead status to every document term. This results in spurious matches of terms out of context. Library patrons and Internet searchers are increasingly dissatisfied with subject access performance, in part because of unmanageably large retrieval sets. The need to enhance precision and limit the size of retrieval sets motivates this work which proposes partial coordination, an approach which incorporates the advantages of computer search with the ability of pre-coordination to limit spurious partial matches and thereby enhance precision

0.087615445 = product of:
  0.35046178 = sum of:
    0.35046178 = weight(_text_:hiding in 5897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.35046178 = score(doc=5897,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.556246 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.6300482 = fieldWeight in 5897, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5897)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Texas A&M University Libraries developed a Web-based training (WBT) application for LandView III, a federal depository CD-ROM publication using cross-browser dynamic HTML (DHTML) and other Web technologies. The interactive and self-paced tutorial demonstrates the major features of the CD-ROM and shows how to navigate the programs. The tutorial features dynamic HTML techniques, such as hiding, showing and moving layers; dragging objects; and windows-style drop-down menus. It also integrates interactive forms, common gateway interface (CGI), frames, and animated GIF images in the design of the WBT. After describing the design and implementation of the tutorial project, an evaluation of usage statistics and user feedback was conducted, as well as an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, and a comparison of this tutorial with other common types of training methods. The present article describes an innovative approach for CD-ROM training using advanced Web technologies such as dynamic HTML, which can simulate and demonstrate the interactive use of the CD-ROM, as well as the actual search process of a database.

0.087615445 = product of:
  0.35046178 = sum of:
    0.35046178 = weight(_text_:hiding in 1742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.35046178 = score(doc=1742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.556246 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.6300482 = fieldWeight in 1742, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1742)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

When information practices are understood to be shaped by social context, privilege and marginalization alternately affect not only access to, but also use of information resources. In the context of information, privilege, and community, politics of marginalization drive stigmatized groups to develop collective norms for locating, sharing, and hiding information. In this paper, we investigate the information practices of a subcultural community whose activities are both stigmatized and of uncertain legal status: the extreme body modification community. We use the construct of information poverty to analyze the experiences of 18 people who had obtained, were interested in obtaining, or had performed extreme body modification procedures. With a holistic understanding of how members of this community use information, we complicate information poverty by working through concepts of stigma and community norms. Our research contributes to human information behavior scholarship on marginalized groups and to Internet studies research on how communities negotiate collective norms of information sharing online.

0.07729929 = product of:
  0.30919716 = sum of:
    0.30919716 = weight(_text_:judge in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30919716 = score(doc=5025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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

0.07729929 = product of:
  0.30919716 = sum of:
    0.30919716 = weight(_text_:judge in 7870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30919716 = score(doc=7870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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

0.07729929 = product of:
  0.30919716 = sum of:
    0.30919716 = weight(_text_:judge in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30919716 = score(doc=1153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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)

0.07729929 = product of:
  0.30919716 = sum of:
    0.30919716 = weight(_text_:judge in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30919716 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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

0.07729929 = product of:
  0.30919716 = sum of:
    0.30919716 = weight(_text_:judge in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30919716 = score(doc=3816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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)

0.073012866 = product of:
  0.29205146 = sum of:
    0.29205146 = weight(_text_:hiding in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29205146 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.556246 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.52504015 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Web navigation enables easy access to vast amounts of information and services. However, it also poses a major risk to users' privacy. Various eavesdroppers constantly attempt to violate users' privacy by tracking their navigation activities and inferring their interests and needs (profiles). Users who wish to keep their intentions secret forego useful services to avoid exposure. The computer security community has concentrated an improving users' privacy by concealing their identity an the Web. However, users may want or need to identify themselves over the Net to receive certain services but still retain their interests, needs, and intentions in private. PRAWa PRivAcy model for the Web suggested in this paperis aimed at hiding users' navigation tracks to prevent eavesdroppers from inferring their profiles but still allowing them to be identified. PRAW is based an continuous generation of fake transactions in various fields of interests to confuse eavesdroppers' automated programs, thus providing them false data. A privacy measure is defined that reflects the difference between users' actual profile and the profile that eavesdroppers might infer. A prototype system was developed to examine PRAW's feasibility and conduct experiments to test its effectiveness. Encouraging results and their analysis are presented, as weIl as possible attacks and known limitations.

0.073012866 = product of:
  0.29205146 = sum of:
    0.29205146 = weight(_text_:hiding in 3649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29205146 = score(doc=3649,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.556246 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.52504015 = fieldWeight in 3649, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3649)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

OCLC's Crosswalk Web Service (Godby, Smith and Childress, 2008) formalizes the notion of crosswalk, as defined in Gill,et al. (n.d.), by hiding technical details and permitting the semantic equivalences to emerge as the centerpiece. One outcome is that metadata experts, who are typically not programmers, can enter the translation logic into a spreadsheet that can be automatically converted into executable code. In this paper, we describe the implementation of the Dublin Core Terms application profile in the management of crosswalks involving MARC. A crosswalk that encodes an application profile extends the typical format with two columns: one that annotates the namespace to which an element belongs, and one that annotates a 'broader-narrower' relation between a pair of elements, such as Dublin Core coverage and Dublin Core Terms spatial. This information is sufficient to produce scripts written in OCLC's Semantic Equivalence Expression Language (or Seel), which are called from the Crosswalk Web Service to generate production-grade translations. With its focus on elements that can be mixed, matched, added, and redefined, the application profile (Heery and Patel, 2000) is a natural fit with the translation model of the Crosswalk Web Service, which attempts to achieve interoperability by mapping one pair of elements at a time.

0.073012866 = product of:
  0.29205146 = sum of:
    0.29205146 = weight(_text_:hiding in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29205146 = score(doc=3952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.556246 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = queryNorm
        0.52504015 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          9.504243 = idf(docFreq=8, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Toolkit designed by the RDA Steering Committee makes Resource Description and Access available on the web, together with other useful documents (workflows, mappings, etc.). Reading, learning and memorizing are interconnected, and a working tool should make these activities faster and easier to perform. Some issues arise while verifying the real easiness of use and learning of the tool. The practical and formal requirements for a cataloguing code include plain language, ease of memorisation, clarity of instructions, familiarity for users, predictability and reproducibility of solutions, and general usability. From a formal point of view, the RDA text does not appear to be conceived for an uninterrupted reading, but just for reading of few paragraphs for temporary catalographic needs. From a content point of view, having a syndetic view of the description of a resource is rather difficult: catalographic details are scattered and their re-organization is not easy. The visualisation and logical organisation in the Toolkit could be improved: the table of contents occupies a sizable portion of the screen and resizing or hiding it is not easy; the indentation leaves little space to the words; inhomogeneous font styles (italic and bold) and poor contrast between background and text colours make reading not easy; simultaneous visualization of two or more parts of the text is not allowed; and Toolkit's icons are less intuitive than expected. In the conclusion, some suggestions on how to improve the Toolkit's aspects and usability are provided.

0.06832357 = product of:
  0.27329427 = sum of:
    0.27329427 = weight(_text_:judge in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27329427 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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.

0.06763688 = product of:
  0.2705475 = sum of:
    0.2705475 = weight(_text_:judge in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2705475 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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

0.06763688 = product of:
  0.2705475 = sum of:
    0.2705475 = weight(_text_:judge in 4844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2705475 = score(doc=4844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.45247534 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05852607 = 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%