Search (1213 results, page 2 of 61)

0.06875875 = product of:
  0.275035 = sum of:
    0.275035 = weight(_text_:judge in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.275035 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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

0.06875875 = product of:
  0.275035 = sum of:
    0.275035 = weight(_text_:judge in 4844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.275035 = score(doc=4844,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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%

0.06875875 = product of:
  0.275035 = sum of:
    0.275035 = weight(_text_:judge in 7418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.275035 = score(doc=7418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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

0.06875875 = product of:
  0.275035 = sum of:
    0.275035 = weight(_text_:judge in 3946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.275035 = score(doc=3946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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

0.06875875 = product of:
  0.275035 = sum of:
    0.275035 = weight(_text_:judge in 4295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.275035 = score(doc=4295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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

0.06875875 = product of:
  0.275035 = sum of:
    0.275035 = weight(_text_:judge in 2851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.275035 = score(doc=2851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.06875875 = product of:
  0.275035 = sum of:
    0.275035 = weight(_text_:judge in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.275035 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.068675414 = product of:
  0.13735083 = sum of:
    0.03101532 = weight(_text_:und in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03101532 = score(doc=2973,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.13195795 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.23503943 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
    0.106335506 = weight(_text_:herring in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.106335506 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5350798 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.993418 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.19872832 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.993418 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Introduction: Libraries and Their Interrelationships with Google - William Miller Disruptive Beneficence: The Google Print Program and the Future of Libraries - Mark Sandler The Google Library Project at Oxford - Ronald Milne The (Uncertain) Future of Libraries in a Google World: Sounding an Alarm - Rick Anderson A Gaggle of Googles: Limitations and Defects of Electronic Access as Panacea - -Mark Y. Herring Using the Google Search Appliance for Federated Searching: A Case Study - Mary Taylor Google's Print and Scholar Initiatives: The Value of and Impact on Libraries and Information Services - Robert J. Lackie Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the Performance of Schoogle - Burton Callicott; Debbie Vaughn Google, the Invisible Web, and Librarians: Slaying the Research Goliath - Francine Egger-Sider; Jane Devine Choices in the Paradigm Shift: Where Next for Libraries? - Shelley E. Phipps; Krisellen Maloney Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library - Maurice C. York Checking Under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use - Janice Adlington; Chris Benda Running with the Devil: Accessing Library-Licensed Full Text Holdings Through Google Scholar - Rebecca Donlan; Rachel Cooke Directing Students to New Information Types: A New Role for Google in Literature Searches? - Mike Thelwall Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy Rachael Cathcart - Amanda Roberts Optimising Publications for Google Users - Alan Dawson Google and Privacy - Paul S. Piper Image: Google's Most Important Product - Ron Force Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack - Michael J. Krasulski; Steven J. Bell

Footnote

Co-published simultaneously as Internet reference services quarterly, vol. 10(1005), nos. 3/4 Rez. in: ZfBB 54(2007) H.2, S.98-99 (D. Lewandowski): "Google und Bibliotheken? Meist hat man leider den Eindruck, dass hier eher ein oder gedacht wird. Dies sehen auch die Herausgeber des vorliegenden Bandes und nehmen deshalb neben Beiträgen zur Diskussion um die Rolle der Bibliotheken im Zeitalter von Google auch solche auf, die Tipps zur Verwendung unterschiedlicher Google-Dienste geben. Die allgemeine Diskussion um Google und die Bibliotheken dreht sich vor allem um die Rolle, die Bibliotheken (mit ihren Informationsportalen) noch spielen können, wenn ihre Nutzer sowieso bei Google suchen, auch wenn die Bibliotheksangebote (zumindest von den Bibliothekaren) als überlegen empfunden werden. Auch wenn die Nutzer geschult werden, greifen sie doch meist lieber zur einfachen Recherchemöglichkeit bei Google oder anderen Suchmaschinen - vielleicht lässt sich die Situation am besten mit dem Satz eines im Buch zitierten Bibliothekars ausdrücken: »Everyone starts with Google except librarians.« (5.95) Sollen die Bibliotheken nun Google die einfache Recherche ganz überlassen und sich auf die komplexeren Suchfragen konzentrieren? Oder verlieren sie dadurch eine Nutzerschaft, die sich mittlerweile gar nicht mehr vorstellen kann, dass man mit anderen Werkzeugen als Suchmaschinen bessere Ergebnisse erzielen kann? Diese sicherlich für die Zukunft der Bibliotheken maßgebliche Frage wird in mehreren Beiträgen diskutiert, wobei auffällt, dass die jeweiligen Autoren keine klare Antwort bieten können, wie Bibliotheken ihre Quellen so präsentieren können, dass die Nutzer mit der Recherche so zufrieden sind, dass sie freiwillig in den Bibliotheksangeboten anstatt in Google recherchieren. Den Schwerpunkt des Buchs machen aber nicht diese eher theoretischen Aufsätze aus, sondern solche, die sich mit konkreten Google-Diensten beschäftigen. Aufgrund ihrer Nähe zu den Bibliotheksangeboten bzw. den Aufgaben der Bibliotheken sind dies vor allem Google Print und Google Scholar, aber auch die Google Search Appliance. Bei letzterer handelt es sich um eine integrierte Hard- und Softwarelösung, die die Indexierung von Inhalten aus unterschiedlichen Datenquellen ermöglicht. Der Aufsatz von Mary Taylor beschreibt die Vor- und Nachteile des Systems anhand der praktischen Anwendung in der University of Nevada.
Ebenfalls direkt aus der Praxis erhält der Leser Informationen zum Google-PrintProgramm. Robert Milne beschreibt die Zusammenarbeit von Google und der Universität Oxford. In diesem Aufsatz wird - was dem Autor natürlich nicht anzulasten ist - ein Problem des vorliegenden Werks deutlich: Viele Informationen sind doch von sehr beschränkter Haltbarkeit. Der Redaktionsschluss war im Frühsommer 2005, sodass sich in vielen Bereichen bereits neue Entwicklungen ergeben haben. Dies ist beim Print-Programm der Fall, vor allem wird es aber bei dem Hauptthema des Bandes, nämlich Google Scholar, deutlich. Dieser Dienst wurde im November 2004 gestartet und stieß auf unterschiedlichste Reaktionen, die (anhand von Beispielen amerikanischer Bibliotheken) im Beitrag von Maurice C. York beschrieben werden. Einige Bibliotheken nahmen den Dienst begeistert auf und verlinkten diesen mit Lob versehen auf ihren Websites. Andere reagierten gegenteilig und warnten vor dessen schlechter Qualität. Auch weil vorauszusehen war, dass Google Scholar bei den Nutzern gut ankommen würde, darf das folgende Statement von einer Bibliothekswebsite geradezu als ignorant gelten: Google Scholar »is wonderful for those who do not have access to the library's databases« (S.119). Wie nun die Scholar-Nutzer auf die Bibliotheksangebote gelenkt werden können, beschreibt der ironisch »Running with the Devil« betitelte Aufsatz von Rebecca Donlan und Rachel Cooke. Die Autorinnen beschreiben den Einsatz von Link-Resolvern und gehen auf die in Google Scholar bestehenden Probleme durch unklare Bezeichnungen in den Trefferlisten ein. Einige Beispiele zeigen, dass Google Scholar auch in Kombination mit der Verlinkung auf die Bibliotheksbestände keine befriedigende Recherchesituation herstellt, sondern vielmehr weitere Anstrengungen nötig sind, um »das Beste beider Welten« zusammenzuführen. Zwei weitere Aufsätze beschäftigen sich mit der Frage, wie gut Google Scholar eigentlich ist. Einmal geht es darum, wie gut Scholar den »ACRL Information Literacy Standards« genügt. Der zweite Beitrag vergleicht Google Scholar anhand von fünf Suchaufgaben einerseits mit einem lokalen Bibliothekskatalog, andererseits mit EBSCOs Academic Search Premier und jeweils einer fachspezifischen Datenbank. Die Ergebnisse zeigen keine durchgehende Überlegenheit einer Suchlösung, vielmehr wird deutlich, dass es auf die Auswahl des richtigen Suchwerkzeugs für die bestehende Suchanfrage ankommt bzw. dass erst eine Kombination dieser Werkzeuge zu optimalen Ergebnissen führt. Man könnte also auch hier wieder sagen: Google und Bibliotheken, nicht Google oder Bibliotheken.
Ein besonders interessanter Aufsatz widmet sich der Frage, wie Bibliotheken ihre Web-Angebote (hier: vor allem die Seiten zu digitalisierten Werken) so optimieren können, dass sie von Google und anderen Suchmaschinen optimal indexiert werden können. Dies wird leicht verständlich erklärt und dürfte für viele Bibliotheken, deren entsprechende Websites noch suboptimal gestaltet sind, eine gute Hilfestellung sein. Auch sehr praktisch orientiert ist der letzte Beitrag des Bandes, der verschiedene Quellen vorstellt, die sich mit aktuellen Entwicklungen bei Google (bzw. bei Suchmaschinen allgemein) beschäftigen, diese einzeln bewertet und Empfehlungen abgibt, welche man regelmäßig und welche man ab und zu lesen sollte. Die Bedeutung ist hier klar: Wenn Bibliotheken sich mit Google messen (oder darüber hinaus gehen?) möchten, müssen sie die Konkurrenz und ihre aktuellen Produkte kennen. Interessant wäre gewesen, noch den einen oder anderen Beitrag zu Suchprodukten von Bibliotheksseite zu lesen. Wie sollten solche Produkte beschaffen sein, um den Google-Nutzer zu den Bibliotheksangeboten zu führen? Welche Angebote gibt es hier bereits? Wie sehen die Anbieter von OPACs und Bibliothekssystemen die Zukunft der Bibliotheksrecherche? Und auch auf die nach Meinung des Rezensenten zurzeit wohl wichtigste Frage im Google-Kontext wird nicht eingegangen: Wie kann es den Bibliotheken gelingen, ein System (oder Systeme) zu schaffen, das nicht nur versucht, die Stärken der Suchmaschinen zu adaptieren, sondern ihnen einen Schritt voraus zu sein? Diese Kritik soll aber nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass es sich bei dem vorliegenden Werk um eine gut lesbare Zusammenstellung von Aufsätzen handelt, die allen empfohlen werden kann, die sich einen Überblick zur Thematik verschaffen wollen, die Diskussion in den internationalen Fachzeitschriften aber nicht sowieso minutiös verfolgen."

0.06645969 = product of:
  0.26583877 = sum of:
    0.26583877 = weight(_text_:herring in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26583877 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5350798 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.993418 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = queryNorm
        0.4968208 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.993418 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 2445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=2445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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)

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 3299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=3299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=3210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 3235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=3235,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=1938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 2998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=2998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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.

0.05893607 = product of:
  0.23574428 = sum of:
    0.23574428 = weight(_text_:judge in 842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23574428 = score(doc=842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4599804 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.731176 = idf(docFreq=52, maxDocs=44421)
          0.059496824 = 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).