Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

4.4124527E-4 = product of:
  0.0066186786 = sum of:
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=496,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

This research analyzes human-generated clarification questions to provide insights into how they are used to disambiguate and provide a better understanding of information needs. A set of clarification questions is extracted from posts on the Stack Exchange platform. Novel taxonomy is defined for the annotation of the questions and their responses. We investigate the clarification questions in terms of whether they add any information to the post (the initial question posted by the asker) and the accepted answer, which is the answer chosen by the asker. After identifying, which clarification questions are more useful, we investigated the characteristics of these questions in terms of their types and patterns. Non-useful clarification questions are identified, and their patterns are compared with useful clarifications. Our analysis indicates that the most useful clarification questions have similar patterns, regardless of topic. This research contributes to an understanding of clarification in conversations and can provide insight for clarification dialogues in conversational search scenarios and for the possible system generation of clarification requests in information-seeking conversations.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.3, S.449-471

3.9466174E-4 = product of:
  0.005919926 = sum of:
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=901,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 901, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Users of search engines express their needs as queries, typically consisting of a small number of terms. The resulting search engine query logs are valuable resources that can be used to predict how people interact with the search system. In this paper, we introduce two novel applications of query logs, in the context of distributed information retrieval. First, we use query log terms to guide sampling from uncooperative distributed collections. We show that while our sampling strategy is at least as efficient as current methods, it consistently performs better. Second, we propose and evaluate a pruning strategy that uses query log information to eliminate terms. Our experiments show that our proposed pruning method maintains the accuracy achieved by complete indexes, while decreasing the index size by up to 60%. While such pruning may not always be desirable in practice, it provides a useful benchmark against which other pruning strategies can be measured.

Source

Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.169-180

2.848226E-4 = product of:
  0.004272339 = sum of:
    0.004272339 = product of:
      0.008544678 = sum of:
        0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 1186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008544678 = score(doc=1186,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1186, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The success of an enterprise information retrieval system is determined by interactions among three key entities: the search engine employed; the service provider who delivers, modifies, and maintains the engine; and the users of the service within the organization. Evaluations of an enterprise search have predominately focused on the effectiveness and efficiency of the engine, with very little analysis of user involvement in the process, and none on the role of service providers. We propose and evaluate a model of costs and benefits to a service provider when investing in enhancements to the ranking of documents returned by their search engine. We demonstrate the model through a case study to analyze the potential impact of using domain experts to provide enhanced mediated search results. By demonstrating how to quantify the cost and benefit of an improved information retrieval system to the service provider, our case study shows that using the relevance assessments of domain experts to rerank original search results can significantly improve the accuracy of ranked lists. Moreover, the service provider gains substantial return on investment and a higher search success rate by investing in the relevance assessments of domain experts. Our cost and benefit analysis results are contrasted with standard modes of effectiveness analysis, including quantitative (using measures such as precision) and qualitative (through user preference surveys) approaches. Modeling costs and benefits explicitly can provide useful insights that the other approaches do not convey.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.146-163

2.79068E-4 = product of:
  0.0041860198 = sum of:
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 2236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=2236,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2236, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Collection sizes, query rates, and the number of users of Web search engines are increasing. Therefore, there is continued demand for innovation in providing search services that meet user information needs. In this article, we propose new techniques to add additional terms to documents with the goal of providing more accurate searches. Our techniques are based an query association, where queries are stored with documents that are highly similar statistically. We show that adding query associations to documents improves the accuracy of Web topic finding searches by up to 7%, and provides an excellent complement to existing supplement techniques for site finding. We conclude that using document surrogates derived from query association is a valuable new technique for accurate Web searching.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.7, S.637-650

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.6, S.1235-1255

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 1820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=1820,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1820, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1820)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.961-979