Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

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