Search (1202 results, page 1 of 61)

0.28061587 = product of:
  0.56123173 = sum of:
    0.49121177 = weight(_text_:judge in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.49121177 = score(doc=73,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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)
    0.07001997 = weight(_text_:und in 73) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07001997 = score(doc=73,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.137478 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.1772126 = product of:
  0.3544252 = sum of:
    0.3274745 = weight(_text_:judge in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3274745 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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)
    0.026950695 = weight(_text_:und in 1114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026950695 = score(doc=1114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.137478 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.12280294 = product of:
  0.49121177 = sum of:
    0.49121177 = weight(_text_:judge in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.49121177 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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)

0.11232928 = product of:
  0.22465856 = sum of:
    0.023821276 = weight(_text_:und in 1332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023821276 = score(doc=1332,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.137478 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = queryNorm
        0.17327337 = fieldWeight in 1332, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1332)
    0.20083728 = weight(_text_:hermann in 1332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20083728 = score(doc=1332,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.47471216 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.6584163 = idf(docFreq=56, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = queryNorm
        0.4230717 = fieldWeight in 1332, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.6584163 = idf(docFreq=56, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1332)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

I wonder if you would consider an English perspective on the exchange between Bernd Jörs and Hermann Huemer. In my career in the independent education sector I can recall many discussions and Government reports about cross-curricular issues such as logical reasoning and critical thinking, In the IB system this led to the inclusion in the Diploma of "Theory of Knowledge." In the UK we had "key skills" and "critical thinking." One such key skill is what we now call "information literacy." "In his parody of Information literacy, Dr Jörs seems to have confused a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. The fact that information competence may be necessary for serious academic study does not of course make it sufficient. When that is understood the joke about the megalomaniac rather loses its force. (We had better pass over the rant which follows, the sneer at "earth sciences" and the German prejudice towards Austrians)."

Content

Zu: Bernd Jörs, Zukunft der Informationswissenschaft und Kritischer Rationalismus - Gegen die Selbstüberschätzung der Vertreter der "Informationskompetenz" eine Rückkehr zu Karl R. Popper geboten, in: Open Password, 30 August - Herbert Huemer, Informationskompetenz als Kompetenz für lebenslanges Lernen, in: Open Password, #965, 25. August 2021 - Huemer nahm auf den Beitrag von Bernd Jörs "Wie sich "Informationskompetenz" methodisch-operativ untersuchen lässt" in Open Password am 20. August 2021 Bezug.

Footnote

Vgl. die Erwiderung: Jörs, B.: Informationskompetenz ist auf domänenspezifisches Vorwissen angewiesen und kann immer nur vorläufig sein: eine Antwort auf Steve Patriarca. Unter: Open Password. 2021, Nr.998 vom 15. November 2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM3NiwiYTRlYWIxNTJhOTU4IiwwLDAsMzM5LDFd].

0.11075787 = product of:
  0.22151574 = sum of:
    0.20467156 = weight(_text_:judge in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20467156 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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)
    0.016844185 = weight(_text_:und in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016844185 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.137478 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.09247891 = product of:
  0.18495782 = sum of:
    0.042944416 = weight(_text_:und in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042944416 = score(doc=4992,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.137478 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = queryNorm
        0.312373 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.1420134 = weight(_text_:hermann in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1420134 = score(doc=4992,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.47471216 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.6584163 = idf(docFreq=56, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = queryNorm
        0.29915687 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.6584163 = idf(docFreq=56, maxDocs=44421)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: B.I.T. online 6(2003) H.3, S.298-299 (J. Plieninger): "Wer im vorigen Heft von B.I.T.online den Fachbeitrag von Hermann Rösch über Bibliothekarische Auskunft im Web gelesen und sich daraufhin überlegt, einen solchen Dienst einzuführen, für den wäre dieses Buch das geeignete Mittel, sich für die Einführung einer Online-Auskunft fit zu machen. Die Autorin ist in der amerikanischen Internet Librarian- und Reference Librarian-Szene wohlbekannt: 1993 verfasste sie mit zwei Mitautoren Crossing the Internet Treshold, ein Tutorial für die Nutzung des Netzes, welches für die Profession eine Hilfestellung für die breite Nutzung des Internets bot. Das hier besprochene Buch könnte eine ähnliche Funktion für die Einführung der Virtual Reference bekommen: Es bietet einen Selbstlernkurs, welcher anschaulich die Grundlagen und die Grundhaltung bei der Implementation eines solchen Dienstes vermittelt. Was ist alles in diesem Kurs enthalten? Der erste Teil des Buches behandelt den Entscheidungsprozess, einen Online-Auskunftsdienst einzuführen: Es werden Vor- und Nachteile diskutiert, die Bedürfnisse der Benutzer untersucht ("There will always be a need for a human consultant to satisfy the needs of the information seeker.") und die Grundlagen der Entscheidungsfindung für eine geeignete Software behandelt. Der zweite Teil handelt dann von den Fragen der "Einrichtung" des virtuellen Auskunftsplatzes. Hier gibt es z.B. eine Schulung in den besonderen Kommunikationsformen, welche beim Chat zu beachten sind, eine Einbettung des neuen Dienstes in das Leitbild, die Geschäftsordnung bzw. Arbeitsorganisation der Bibliothek ("library policies") und zuletzt die komfortable Ausstattung des Auskunftsplatzes für Benutzer und Beschäftigte bis hin zu Fragen der Evaluation und Qualitätssicherung. Der dritte Teil behandelt die Aufgabe, einen Dienst zu implementieren, der sich selbst trägt, indem man ein Marketing für den neuen Dienst einrichtet, das ihn auf herkömmlichen und neuen Wegen promotet und ihn benutzerfreundlich ausgestaltet.
Im umfangreichen Anhang (44 S.) sind Checklisten, Übungen und Schulungsunterlagen vor allem zur richtigen Kommunikation mit den Benutzern zu finden. Am Schluss des Buches befindet sich noch ein Stichwortverzeichnis. Beigelegt ist eine CD-ROM mit allen im Buch aufgeführten Übungen und Links, so dass man auch am Bildschirm darauf zurückgreifen bzw. sie ausdrucken kann. Hervorzuheben ist, dass das Buch als Arbeitsbuch ausgestattet ist, es gibt viel Raum für Notizen, es werden viele anschauliche Beispiele gegeben und zu jedem Kapitel werden mehrere Übungsaufgaben gestellt. Es ist ein typisches amerikanisches Einführungsbuch, das in beneidenswert anschaulicher und konsequent praktisch orientierter Art die Leserin/den Leser in ein neues Arbeitsfeld einführt, so dass man nach der Lektüre wirklich den Eindruck hat, in Stand gesetzt zu sein, einen solchen Service in professioneller Art und Weise aufbauen zu können. Vielleicht sollte noch hervorgehoben werden, dass die Autorin es verstanden hat, den Inhalt so zu gestalten, dass er ein längeres Haltbarkeitsdatum bietet: Obwohl alle grundsätzlichen Dinge abgehandelt werden, wie z.B. die Entscheidungsgrundlagen für eine Software, wird doch nie eine konkrete Software behandelt. Solche Angaben würden schnell veralten im Gegensatz zu den Kriterien, die Software beurteilen zu können. Die Autorin bemüht sich auch, Internet-Quellen aufzuführen und zu besprechen, wo man sich in diesen Fragen up to date halten kann. Ein Buch, das in die Hände all jener gehört, für welche die Einführung einer Online-Auskunft in Frage kommt. Hermann Rösch führte in seinem Artikel zum Schluss lediglich einige Universitätsbibliotheken an, welche bereits eine Online-Auskunft eingeführt haben. Werden die öffentlichen Bibliotheken einen solchen Dienst nur in kooperativer Art und Weise über die Deutsche Internetbibliothek anbieten? Hoffentlich nicht, da die Einrichtung eines Virtual Reference Desk eine hervorragende Gelegenheit darstellt, das Image der Bibliothek als Informationsvermittlungsstelle nachhaltig zu stärken und jenen Benutzern einen Zugang zur Information zu ermöglichen, welche nicht in die Bibliothek kommen. Jedenfalls gibt dieses Buch die Grundlage, das Für und Wider eines solchen Dienstes abzuwägen und im Falle einer Einrichtung auch die Schulung der betroffenen Auskunftsbibliothekarinnen/-bibliothekare auf eine solide Basis zu stellen."
Rez. in BuB 56(2004) H.3: "Auskunfts- und Informationsdienst wird in den USA als unverzichtbare und wohl wichtigste bibliothekarische Tätigkeit betrachtet. Daher verwundert nicht, dass die Popularisierung des Internet Bibliothekare und Bibliotheken frühzeitig dazu veranlasst hat, ihre Auskunftsdienstleistungen im Web anzubieten. Dies geschah zunächst durch organisierte Auskunft per E-Mail, später per Webformular und vor allem seit 2000/2001 verstärkt per Chat. Als zusammenfassende Bezeichnung für diese Varianten wird meist der Begriff digital reference verwendet. In den USA, aber auch in Australien, Großbritannien oder Skandinavien schenkt man dem Thema Digital Reference schon seit mehreren Jahren größte Aufmerksamkeit. Die Zahl der bislang dazu publizierten Fachaufsätze lag Ende 2003 bereits weit über 600, jährlich im November findet seit 1999 die »Digital Reference Conference« statt, und mit DIG_REF sowie LiveReference existieren zwei Diskussionslisten, die sich ausschließlich mit Fragen bibliothekarischer Auskunft im Internet beschäftigen. Im vergangenen Jahr sind in den USA allein vier umfangreiche Monographien zu Digital Reference erschienen, darunter das hier zu besprechende Werk von Anne Lipow. ... Gegenwärtig deutet sich an, dass das Thema Digital Reference, Online-Auskunft oder Auskunft per Chat in deutschen Bibliotheken auf mehr Interesse stößt als in den vergangenen Jahren. Nachdem bislang vorwiegend (einige wenige) wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken ChatAuskunft anbieten, haben mehrere Öffentliche Bibliotheken, darunter die ZLB Berlin und die Stadtbücherei Frankfurt am Main, angekündigt, zukünftig auchAuskunftperChatanbieten zu wollen. Eine wichtige Rolle spielt in diesem Zusammenhang der weltweite Auskunftsverbund QuestionPoint, der von OCLC gemeinsam mit der Library of Congress betrieben wird. Sowohl denjenigen, die sich noch im Unklaren sind, als auch jenen, die entsprechende Planungen bereits beschlossen haben, kann der Band von Anne Lipow nur wärmstens empfohlen werden." (H. Rösch)

0.081868626 = product of:
  0.3274745 = sum of:
    0.3274745 = weight(_text_:judge in 5025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3274745 = score(doc=5025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.081868626 = product of:
  0.3274745 = sum of:
    0.3274745 = weight(_text_:judge in 7870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3274745 = score(doc=7870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.081868626 = product of:
  0.3274745 = sum of:
    0.3274745 = weight(_text_:judge in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3274745 = score(doc=1153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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)

0.081868626 = product of:
  0.3274745 = sum of:
    0.3274745 = weight(_text_:judge in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3274745 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.081868626 = product of:
  0.3274745 = sum of:
    0.3274745 = weight(_text_:judge in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3274745 = score(doc=3816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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)

0.072362326 = product of:
  0.2894493 = sum of:
    0.2894493 = weight(_text_:judge in 197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2894493 = score(doc=197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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.

0.07163505 = product of:
  0.2865402 = sum of:
    0.2865402 = weight(_text_:judge in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865402 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.07163505 = product of:
  0.2865402 = sum of:
    0.2865402 = weight(_text_:judge in 4844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865402 = score(doc=4844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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%

0.07163505 = product of:
  0.2865402 = sum of:
    0.2865402 = weight(_text_:judge in 7418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865402 = score(doc=7418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.07163505 = product of:
  0.2865402 = sum of:
    0.2865402 = weight(_text_:judge in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865402 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = queryNorm
        0.59792763 = fieldWeight in 3946, 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=3946)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the increased use of local area networks, CD-ROMs and the Internet, an enormous amount of traditional material is becoming available. Quality issues are therefore becoming even more vital. Describes a methodology being evaluated by The Centre for Information Quality (CIQM) whereby databases can be quantitatively labelled by their producers, so that users can judge how much reliance can be place on them. At the same time, each label bacomes a database specific standard to which its information provider must adhere. This may be a route to responsible information supply

0.07163505 = product of:
  0.2865402 = sum of:
    0.2865402 = weight(_text_:judge in 4295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865402 = score(doc=4295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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

0.07163505 = product of:
  0.2865402 = sum of:
    0.2865402 = weight(_text_:judge in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865402 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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.

0.07163505 = product of:
  0.2865402 = sum of:
    0.2865402 = weight(_text_:judge in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2865402 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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.

0.06140147 = product of:
  0.24560589 = sum of:
    0.24560589 = weight(_text_:judge in 2445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24560589 = score(doc=2445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4792222 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.061985683 = 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)