Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.006491486 = product of:
  0.06491486 = sum of:
    0.06491486 = weight(_text_:log in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06491486 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3540296 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to resolve a gap in the knowledge of how people with dyslexia interact with information retrieval (IR) systems, specifically an understanding of their information-searching behaviour. Design/methodology/approach - The dyslexia cognitive profile is used to design a logging system, recording the difference between two sets of participants: dyslexic and control users. A standard Okapi interface is used - together with two standard TREC topics - in order to record the information searching behaviour of these users. Findings - Using the log data, the differences in information-searching behaviour of control and dyslexic users, i.e. in the way the two groups interact with Okapi, are established and it also established that qualitative information collected (such as experience etc.) may not be able to account for these differences. Evidence from query variables was unable to distinguish between groups, but differences on topic for the same variables were recorded. Users who view more documents tended to judge more documents as being relevant, in terms of either the user group or topic. Session data indicated that there may be an important difference between the number of iterations used in a search between the user groups, as there may be little effect from the topic on this variable. Originality/value - This is the first study of the effect of dyslexia on information search behaviour, and it provides some evidence to take the field forward.

0.005344602 = product of:
  0.053446017 = sum of:
    0.053446017 = weight(_text_:web in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053446017 = score(doc=817,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.57238775 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of the paper is to put forward a structured mechanism for web search evaluation. The paper seeks to point to useful scientific research and show how information practitioners can use these methods in evaluation of search on the web for their users. Design/methodology/approach - The paper puts forward an approach which utilizes traditional laboratory-based evaluation measures such as average precision/precision at N documents, augmented with diagnostic measures such as link broken, etc., which are used to show why precision measures are depressed as well as the quality of the search engines crawling mechanism. Findings - The paper shows how to use diagnostic measures in conjunction with precision in order to evaluate web search. Practical implications - The methodology presented in this paper will be useful to any information professional who regularly uses web search as part of their information seeking and needs to evaluate web search services. Originality/value - The paper argues that the use of diagnostic measures is essential in web search, as precision measures on their own do not allow a searcher to understand why search results differ between search engines.

0.0028568096 = product of:
  0.028568096 = sum of:
    0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028568096 = score(doc=1370,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Large image collections on the Web need to be organized for effective retrieval. Metadata has a key role in image retrieval but rely on professionally assigned tags which is not a viable option. Current content-based image retrieval systems have not demonstrated sufficient utility on large-scale image sources on the web, and are usually used as a supplement to existing text-based image retrieval systems. We present two social tagging alternatives in the form of photo-sharing networks and image labeling games. Here we analyze these applications to evaluate their usefulness from the semantic point of view, investigating the management of social tagging for indexing. The findings of the study have shown that social tagging can generate a sizeable number of tags that can be classified as in terpretive for an image, and that tagging behaviour has a manageable and adjustable nature depending on tagging guidelines.

0.0016833913 = product of:
  0.016833913 = sum of:
    0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016833913 = score(doc=819,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 819, 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=819)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Purpose - An issue that tends to be ignored in information retrieval is the issue of updating inverted files. This is largely because inverted files were devised to provide fast query service, and much work has been done with the emphasis strongly on queries. This paper aims to study the effect of using parallel methods for the update of inverted files in order to reduce costs, by looking at two types of partitioning for inverted files: document identifier and term identifier. Design/methodology/approach - Raw update service and update with query service are studied with these partitioning schemes using an incremental update strategy. The paper uses standard measures used in parallel computing such as speedup to examine the computing results and also the costs of reorganising indexes while servicing transactions. Findings - Empirical results show that for both transaction processing and index reorganisation the document identifier method is superior. However, there is evidence that the term identifier partitioning method could be useful in a concurrent transaction processing context. Practical implications - There is an increasing need to service updates, which is now becoming a requirement of inverted files (for dynamic collections such as the web), demonstrating that a shift in requirements of inverted file maintenance is needed from the past. Originality/value - The paper is of value to database administrators who manage large-scale and dynamic text collections, and who need to use parallel computing to implement their text retrieval services.

0.0010337222 = product of:
  0.010337221 = sum of:
    0.010337221 = product of:
      0.031011663 = sum of:
        0.031011663 = weight(_text_:22 in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031011663 = score(doc=5108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5108)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

20. 1.2007 18:30:22

6.51941E-4 = product of:
  0.00651941 = sum of:
    0.00651941 = product of:
      0.019558229 = sum of:
        0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 2053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019558229 = score(doc=2053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2053, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2053)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

29. 7.2008 19:33:02

6.51941E-4 = product of:
  0.00651941 = sum of:
    0.00651941 = product of:
      0.019558229 = sum of:
        0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 3941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019558229 = score(doc=3941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3941)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

29. 8.2010 12:23:57