Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12008574 = product of:
  0.16011432 = sum of:
    0.07618698 = weight(_text_:web in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07618698 = score(doc=4285,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.16134618 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.47219574 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
    0.056571957 = weight(_text_:search in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056571957 = score(doc=4285,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.32922143 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
    0.027355384 = product of:
      0.05471077 = sum of:
        0.05471077 = weight(_text_:engine in 4285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05471077 = score(doc=4285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26447627 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.20686457 = fieldWeight in 4285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.349498 = idf(docFreq=570, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The introduction and growth of the World Wide Web (WWW, or Web) have resulted in a profound change in the way individuals and organizations access information. In terms of volume, nature, and accessibility, the characteristics of electronic information are significantly different from those of even five or six years ago. Control of, and access to, this flood of information rely heavily an automated techniques for indexing and retrieval. According to Gudivada, Raghavan, Grosky, and Kasanagottu (1997, p. 58), "The ability to search and retrieve information from the Web efficiently and effectively is an enabling technology for realizing its full potential." Almost 93 percent of those surveyed consider the Web an "indispensable" Internet technology, second only to e-mail (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). Although there are other ways of locating information an the Web (browsing or following directory structures), 85 percent of users identify Web pages by means of a search engine (Graphie, Visualization & Usability Center, 1998). A more recent study conducted by the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society confirms the finding that searching for information is second only to e-mail as an Internet activity (Nie & Ebring, 2000, online). In fact, Nie and Ebring conclude, "... the Internet today is a giant public library with a decidedly commercial tilt. The most widespread use of the Internet today is as an information search utility for products, travel, hobbies, and general information. Virtually all users interviewed responded that they engaged in one or more of these information gathering activities."
Techniques for automated indexing and information retrieval (IR) have been developed, tested, and refined over the past 40 years, and are well documented (see, for example, Agosti & Smeaton, 1996; BaezaYates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999a; Frakes & Baeza-Yates, 1992; Korfhage, 1997; Salton, 1989; Witten, Moffat, & Bell, 1999). With the introduction of the Web, and the capability to index and retrieve via search engines, these techniques have been extended to a new environment. They have been adopted, altered, and in some Gases extended to include new methods. "In short, search engines are indispensable for searching the Web, they employ a variety of relatively advanced IR techniques, and there are some peculiar aspects of search engines that make searching the Web different than more conventional information retrieval" (Gordon & Pathak, 1999, p. 145). The environment for information retrieval an the World Wide Web differs from that of "conventional" information retrieval in a number of fundamental ways. The collection is very large and changes continuously, with pages being added, deleted, and altered. Wide variability between the size, structure, focus, quality, and usefulness of documents makes Web documents much more heterogeneous than a typical electronic document collection. The wide variety of document types includes images, video, audio, and scripts, as well as many different document languages. Duplication of documents and sites is common. Documents are interconnected through networks of hyperlinks. Because of the size and dynamic nature of the Web, preprocessing all documents requires considerable resources and is often not feasible, certainly not an the frequent basis required to ensure currency. Query length is usually much shorter than in other environments-only a few words-and user behavior differs from that in other environments. These differences make the Web a novel environment for information retrieval (Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto, 1999b; Bharat & Henzinger, 1998; Huang, 2000).

0.013997929 = product of:
  0.055991717 = sum of:
    0.055991717 = weight(_text_:search in 5160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055991717 = score(doc=5160,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 5160, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5160)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Choi and Rasmussen collect queries to the Library of Congress's American Memory photo archive from 48 scholars in American History by way of interviews and pre and post search questionnaires. Their interest is in the types of information need common in the visual domain, and the categories of terms most often used or indicated as appropriate for the description of image contents. Each search resulted in the provision of 20 items for evaluation by the searcher. Terms in queries and acceptable retrievals were categorized by a who, what, when, where faceted classification and queries into four needs categories; specific, general, abstract, and subjective. Two out of three analysts assigned all 38 requests into the same one of the four categories and in 19 cases all three agreed. General/nameable needs accounted for 60.5%, specific needs 26.3%, 7.9% for general/abstract, and 5.3% for subjective needs. The facet analysis indicated most content was of the form person/thing or event/condition limited by geography or time.

0.008248359 = product of:
  0.032993436 = sum of:
    0.032993436 = weight(_text_:search in 840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032993436 = score(doc=840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17183559 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049439456 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=840)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Convenient image capture techniques, inexpensive storage, and widely available dissemination methods have made digital images a convenient and easily available information format. This increased availability of images is accompanied by a need for solutions to the problems inherent in indexing them for retrieval. Unfortunately, to date, very little information has been available on why users search for images, how they intend to use them, as well as how they pose their queries, though this situation is being remedied as a body of research begins to accumulate. New image indexing methods are also being explored. Traditional concept-based indexing uses controlled vocabulary or natural language to express what an image is or what it is about. Newly developed content-based techniques rely on a pixel-level interpretation of the data content of the image. Concept-based indexing has the advantage of providing a higher-level analysis of the image content but is expensive to implement and suffers from a lack of interindexer consistency due to the subjective nature of image interpretation. Content-based indexing is relatively inexpensive to implement but provides a relatively low level of interpretation of the image except in fairly narrow and applied domains. To date, very little is known about the usefulness of the access provided by content-based systems, and more work needs to be done on user needs and satisfaction with these systems. An examination of a number of image database systems shows the range of techniques that have been used to provide intellectual access to image collections.

0.0033491817 = product of:
  0.013396727 = sum of:
    0.013396727 = product of:
      0.026793454 = sum of:
        0.026793454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026793454 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17312855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049439456 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

15. 8.2004 19:22:19