 |
 |
Thanks...is it just a straight sum, Thom? --C Hickey,Thom wrote: >Here at OCLC we're ranking based on the holdings of all the records in >the retrieved work set. Seems to work pretty well. > >--Th > >-----Original Message----- >From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >Colleen Whitney >Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:06 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR > >Hello all, > >Here's a question for anyone who has been thinking about or working with >FRBR for creating record groupings for display. (Perhaps others have >already discussed or addressed this...in which case I'd be happy to have >a pointer to resources that are already out there.) > >In a retrieval environment that presents ranked results (ranked by >record content, optionally boosted by circulation and/or holdings), how >could/should FRBR-like record groupings be factored into ranking? >Several approaches have been discussed here: > - Rank the results using the score from the highest-scoring record in a >group > - Use the sum of scores of documents in a group (this seems to me to >place too much weight on the group) > - Use the log of the sum of the scores of documents in a group > >I'd be very interested in knowing whether others have already been >thinking about this.... > >Regards, > >--Colleen Whitney > >