The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION OF TERM SPECIFICITY AND ITS APPLICATION IN RETRIEVAL
Abstract
Abstract: The exhaustivity of document descriptions and the specificity of index terms are usually regarded as independent. It is suggested that specificity should be interpreted statistically, as a function of term use rather than of term meaning. The effects on retrieval of variations in term specificity are examined, experiments with three test collections showing, in particular, that frequently-occurring terms are required for good overall performance. It is argued that terms should be weighted according to collection frequency, so that matches on less frequent, more specific, terms are of greater value than matches on frequent terms. Results for the test collections show that considerable improvements in performance are obtained with this very simple procedure. Exhaustivity and specificity We are familiar with the notions of exhaustivity and specificity: exhaustivity is a property of index descriptions, and specificity one of index terms. They are most clearly illustrated by a simple keyword or descriptor system. In this case the exhaustivity of a document description is the coverage of its various topics given by the terms assigned to it; and the specificity of an individual term is the level of detail at which a given concept is represented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- AITCHISON T. M., 1970, Comparative evaluation of index languages, Part II
- 10.1002/asi.4630200304 · DOI
- BORKO H., 1968, Mechanised information storage, retrieval and dissemination
- CLEVERDON C. W., 1966, Cranfield
- CURTICE R. M., 1969, P. E. An operational interactive retrieval system
- LANCASTER F.W., 1968, characteristics, testing and evaluation
- SALTON G., 1968, Automatic information organization and retrieval
- 10.1145/321439.321441 · DOI
- SPARCK JONES K., 1971, Automatic keyword classificationfor information retrieval
- 10.1002/asi.5090180209 · DOI
Cited by
A vector space model for automatic indexing
Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/361219.361220 · Cited by 7,521
The vocabulary problem in human-system communication
Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., Gomez, L. M., & Dumais, S. T. (1987) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/32206.32212 · Cited by 1,504
An information-theoretic perspective of tf–idf measures
Aizawa, A. (2003) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/s0306-4573(02)00021-3 · Cited by 1,419
A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Fan, W., Ding, Y., Ning, L., Wang, S., Li, H., Yin, D., Chua, T.-S., & Li, Q. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671470 · Cited by 827
Automated Text Analysis for Consumer Research
Humphreys, A., & Wang, R. J.-H. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx104 · Cited by 636
Metadata
- Authors
- SPARCK JONES, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Documentation
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 1972-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 11-21
- ISSN
- 0022-0418 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144211451
- Cited by
- 4,505
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 42.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION OF TERM SPECIFICITY AND ITS APPLICATION IN RETRIEVAL. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/eb026526
- The paper
- SPARCK JONES, K. (1972). A STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION OF TERM SPECIFICITY AND ITS APPLICATION IN RETRIEVAL. Journal of Documentation. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026526
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.