Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Behnert, C."
  1. Behnert, C.; Borst, T.: Neue Formen der Relevanz-Sortierung in bibliothekarischen Informationssystemen : das DFG-Projekt LibRank (2015) 0.02 
    0.01724993 = product of:
  0.10349958 = sum of:
    0.020941569 = weight(_text_:und in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020941569 = score(doc=5392,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=5392,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
    0.05325276 = weight(_text_:einzelnen in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05325276 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1139978 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.285069 = idf(docFreq=608, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.4671385 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.285069 = idf(docFreq=608, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
    0.020941569 = weight(_text_:und in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020941569 = score(doc=5392,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
  0.16666667 = coord(5/30)
    Abstract
    Das von der DFG geförderte Projekt LibRank erforscht neue Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme, die aufbauend auf Erkenntnissen aus dem Bereich Websuche qualitätsinduzierende Faktoren wie z. B. Aktualität, Popularität und Verfügbarkeit von einzelnen Medien berücksichtigen. Die konzipierten Verfahren werden im Kontext eines in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften häufig genutzten Rechercheportals (EconBiz) entwickelt und in einem Testsystem systematisch evaluiert. Es werden Rankingfaktoren, die für den Bibliotheksbereich von besonderem Interesse sind, vorgestellt und exemplarisch Probleme und Herausforderungen aufgezeigt.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 39(2015) H.3, S.384-393
  2. Behnert, C.: Kriterien und Einflussfaktoren bei der Relevanzbewertung von Surrogaten in akademischen Informationssystemen (2019) 0.01 
    0.006699575 = product of:
  0.050246812 = sum of:
    0.020941569 = weight(_text_:und in 5024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020941569 = score(doc=5024,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 5024, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5024)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 5024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=5024,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 5024, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5024)
    0.020941569 = weight(_text_:und in 5024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020941569 = score(doc=5024,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 5024, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5024)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 5024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=5024,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 5024, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5024)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    In diesem Beitrag wird ein Nutzermodell für Relevanzbewertungen in akademischen Informationssystemen unter Berücksichtigung von Popularitätsdaten vorgestellt. Das Modell stellt erstmals eine systematische Darstellung der Einflussgrößen von Relevanzbewertungen vor und nimmt eine explizite Unterscheidung zwischen Relevanzmerkmalen, Relevanzkriterien und Relevanzfaktoren vor. Der Fokus liegt auf Suchergebnissen, die neben den üblichen Elementen wie Titel und Beschreibung auch Popularitätsdaten enthalten, wie zum Beispiel Zitations- oder Downloadzahlen zu einem Werk.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.24-32
  3. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.01 
    0.005215454 = product of:
  0.039115902 = sum of:
    0.01638937 = weight(_text_:und in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01638937 = score(doc=5023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.004365201 = weight(_text_:in in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004365201 = score(doc=5023,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.01638937 = weight(_text_:und in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01638937 = score(doc=5023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag beschreibt eine Studie zur Entwicklung und Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme. Dazu wurden mögliche Faktoren für das Relevanzranking ausgehend von den Verfahren in Websuchmaschinen identifiziert, auf den Bibliothekskontext übertragen und systematisch evaluiert. Mithilfe eines Testsystems, das auf dem ZBW-Informationsportal EconBiz und einer web-basierten Software zur Evaluierung von Suchsystemen aufsetzt, wurden verschiedene Relevanzfaktoren (z. B. Popularität in Verbindung mit Aktualität) getestet. Obwohl die getesteten Rankingverfahren auf einer theoretischen Ebene divers sind, konnten keine einheitlichen Verbesserungen gegenüber den Baseline-Rankings gemessen werden. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass eine Adaptierung des Rankings auf individuelle Nutzer bzw. Nutzungskontexte notwendig sein könnte, um eine höhere Performance zu erzielen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.14-23
  4. Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017) 0.00 
    3.0176953E-4 = product of:
  0.0045265425 = sum of:
    0.0031180005 = weight(_text_:in in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031180005 = score(doc=3700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.3, S.509-527

Authors

Languages

Themes