Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.002306778 = product of:
  0.020761002 = sum of:
    0.020761002 = product of:
      0.041522004 = sum of:
        0.041522004 = weight(_text_:web in 4922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041522004 = score(doc=4922,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 4922, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4922)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In this article the authors look at the prescriptions advocated by Web search textbooks in the light of a selection of empirical data of real Web information search processes. They use the strategy of disjointed incrementalism, which is a theoretical foundation from decision making, to focus an how people face complex problems, and claim that such problem solving can be compared to the tasks searchers perform when interacting with the Web. The findings suggest that textbooks an Web searching should take into account that searchers only tend to take a certain number of sources into consideration, that the searchers adjust their goals and objectives during searching, and that searchers reconsider the usefulness of sources at different stages of their work tasks as well as their search tasks.

0.0013592821 = product of:
  0.012233539 = sum of:
    0.012233539 = product of:
      0.024467077 = sum of:
        0.024467077 = weight(_text_:web in 2533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024467077 = score(doc=2533,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2533, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The article presents the search situation transition (SST) method for analysing Web information search (WIS) processes. The idea of the method is to analyse searching behaviour, the process, in detail and connect both the searchers' actions (captured in a log) and his/her intentions and goals, which log analysis never captures. On the other hand, ex post factor surveys, while popular in WIS research, cannot capture the actual search processes. The method is presented through three facets: its domain, its procedure, and its justification. The method's domain is presented in the form of a conceptual framework which maps five central categories that influence WIS processes; the searcher, the social/organisational environment, the work task, the search task, and the process itself. The method's procedure includes various techniques for data collection and analysis. The article presents examples from real WIS processes and shows how the method can be used to identify the interplay of the categories during the processes. It is shown that the method presents a new approach in information seeking and retrieval by focusing on the search process as a phenomenon and by explicating how different information seeking factors directly affect the search process.

0.001106661 = product of:
  0.009959949 = sum of:
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:22:42

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Information retrieval systems' ability to retrieve highly relevant documents has become more and more important in the age of extremely large collections, such as the World Wide Web (WWW). The authors' aim was to find out how corpus-based cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) manages in retrieving highly relevant documents. They created a Finnish-Swedish comparable corpus from two loosely related document collections and used it as a source of knowledge for query translation. Finnish test queries were translated into Swedish and run against a Swedish test collection. Graded relevance assessments were used in evaluating the results and three relevance criterion levels-liberal, regular, and stringent-were applied. The runs were also evaluated with generalized recall and precision, which weight the retrieved documents according to their relevance level. The performance of the Comparable Corpus Translation system (COCOT) was compared to that of a dictionarybased query translation program; the two translation methods were also combined. The results indicate that corpus-based CUR performs particularly well with highly relevant documents. In average precision, COCOT even matched the monolingual baseline on the highest relevance level. The performance of the different query translation methods was further analyzed by finding out reasons for poor rankings of highly relevant documents.