Author
Listed:
- Richard S. Marcus
- Peter Kugel
- Alan R. Benenfeld
Abstract
The indicativity of a type of catalog information (or catalog field) is intended as a measure of how well the information in the field conveys the contents of the document it represents. In the experiments reported here, indicativity is measured for several catalog fields by comparing users' evaluations of the relevance of documents on the basis of the information in a given field with their judgments on the basis of full text. A small but statistically significant increase in indicativity is found as the length of a catalog field (as measured by the number of different content‐word stems) is increased. The title field is found to have an indicativity of 0.64; matching subjects, 0.67; subjects, 0.70; abstract, 0.73. Despite the relatively small gain in indicativity for the longer fields, users value the longer fields highly for determining relevance if one judges by the amount of time they spend on them. Support for the hypothesis that the indicativity measure does not fully reflect the value of the fields is developed. Thus, the question of the cost effectiveness of the longer fields is unresolved. Other aspects of catalog field utility studied under the Project Intrex equipments are also reported.
Suggested Citation
Richard S. Marcus & Peter Kugel & Alan R. Benenfeld, 1978.
"Catalog information and text as indicators of relevance,"
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 29(1), pages 15-30, January.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:jamest:v:29:y:1978:i:1:p:15-30
DOI: 10.1002/asi.4630290105
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamest:v:29:y:1978:i:1:p:15-30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.