Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010037302 = product of:
  0.030111905 = sum of:
    0.030111905 = weight(_text_:resources in 645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030111905 = score(doc=645,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.16132367 = fieldWeight in 645, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=645)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The concept of relevance has a rich history in information retrieval (IR) that dates back well over 40 years (Borlund, 2003) and is necessarily a part of any theory of informationseeking and retrieval. Relevance feedback also has a long history in IR (Salton, 1971) and is considered an important part of interactive IR (Spink and Losee, 1996). Relevance feedback techniques often require users to explicitly provide feedback to the system, by, for instance, specifying keywords, selecting, evaluating and marking documents, or answering questions about their interests. The feedback that users provide during these interactions has been used for a variety of IR techniques and applications including query expansion, term disambiguation, user profiling, filtering and personalization. Empirical studies have led to the general finding that users of interactive IR systems desire explicit relevance feedback features and, in particular, term suggestion features (Beaulieu, 1997; Belkin et al., 2001; Koenemann and Belkin, 1996). However, much of the evidence from laboratory studies has indicated that relevance feedback features are not used. While users often report a desire for relevance feedback and term suggestion, they do not actually use these features during their searching activities. Several reasons can be given for why this disparately exists. Users may not have additional cognitive resources available to operate the relevance feedback feature. While the extra effort required to operate the feature may seem trivial, the user is already potentially involved in a complex and cognitively burdensome task. Increased effort would be required for both learning the new system and operating its features. When features require more effort and additional cognitive processing than they appear to be worth, they may be abandoned all together. Furthermore, if relevance feedback features are not implemented as part of the routine search activity, they may be forgotten, no matter how helpful they are. This research, in part, has lead to the general belief that users are unwilling to engage in explicit relevance feedback. Recently (Anick, 2003) demonstrated in a web-based study, that users made use of a term suggestion feature to expand and refine their queries, thus things may be changing. These results suggest the potential of term suggestion features in some types of information-seeking environments, especially for single session interactions. Hence it may just be the case that traditional relevance feedback interfaces have not effectively elicited feedback from users or optimally integrated relevance feedback features into current information interaction models.

0.0074881846 = product of:
  0.022464553 = sum of:
    0.022464553 = product of:
      0.044929106 = sum of:
        0.044929106 = weight(_text_:management in 893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044929106 = score(doc=893,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 893, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=893)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.30-46

0.0064184438 = product of:
  0.01925533 = sum of:
    0.01925533 = product of:
      0.03851066 = sum of:
        0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851066 = score(doc=902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.181-203

0.005348703 = product of:
  0.016046109 = sum of:
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 2029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=2029,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2029, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2029)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.122-141