Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"d"
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Agosti, M.; Pretto, L.: ¬A theoretical study of a generalized version of kleinberg's HITS algorithm (2005) 0.01 
    0.008037447 = product of:
  0.040187236 = sum of:
    0.033667825 = weight(_text_:web in 4) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033667825 = score(doc=4,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 4, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4)
    0.00651941 = product of:
      0.019558229 = sum of:
        0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 4) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019558229 = score(doc=4,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4, 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=4)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Kleinberg's HITS (Hyperlink-Induced Topic Search) algorithm (Kleinberg 1999), which was originally developed in a Web context, tries to infer the authoritativeness of a Web page in relation to a specific query using the structure of a subgraph of the Web graph, which is obtained considering this specific query. Recent applications of this algorithm in contexts far removed from that of Web searching (Bacchin, Ferro and Melucci 2002, Ng et al. 2001) inspired us to study the algorithm in the abstract, independently of its particular applications, trying to mathematically illuminate its behaviour. In the present paper we detail this theoretical analysis. The original work starts from the definition of a revised and more general version of the algorithm, which includes the classic one as a particular case. We perform an analysis of the structure of two particular matrices, essential to studying the behaviour of the algorithm, and we prove the convergence of the algorithm in the most general case, finding the analytic expression of the vectors to which it converges. Then we study the symmetry of the algorithm and prove the equivalence between the existence of symmetry and the independence from the order of execution of some basic operations on initial vectors. Finally, we expound some interesting consequences of our theoretical results.
    Date
    31.12.1996 19:29:41
  2. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001) 0.00 
    0.0034988632 = product of:
  0.03498863 = sum of:
    0.03498863 = weight(_text_:web in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03498863 = score(doc=5771,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    In unserem Retrievaltest von Suchwerkzeugen im World Wide Web (Password 11/2000) schnitt die Suchmaschine Google am besten ab. Im Vergleich zu anderen Search Engines setzt Google kaum auf Informationslinguistik, sondern auf Algorithmen, die sich aus den Besonderheiten der Web-Dokumente ableiten lassen. Kernstück der informationsstatistischen Technik ist das "PageRank"- Verfahren (benannt nach dem Entwickler Larry Page), das aus der Hypertextstruktur des Web die "Popularität" von Seiten anhand ihrer ein- und ausgehenden Links berechnet. Google besticht durch das Angebot intuitiv verstehbarer Suchbildschirme sowie durch einige sehr nützliche "Kleinigkeiten" wie die Angabe des Rangs einer Seite, Highlighting, Suchen in der Seite, Suchen innerhalb eines Suchergebnisses usw., alles verstaut in einer eigenen Befehlsleiste innerhalb des Browsers. Ähnlich wie RealNames bietet Google mit dem Produkt "AdWords" den Aufkauf von Suchtermen an. Nach einer Reihe von nunmehr vier Password-Artikeln über InternetSuchwerkzeugen im Vergleich wollen wir abschließend zu einer Bewertung kommen. Wie ist der Stand der Technik bei Directories und Search Engines aus informationswissenschaftlicher Sicht einzuschätzen? Werden die "typischen" Internetnutzer, die ja in der Regel keine Information Professionals sind, adäquat bedient? Und können auch Informationsfachleute von den Suchwerkzeugen profitieren?
  3. Mandl, T.: Web- und Multimedia-Dokumente : Neuere Entwicklungen bei der Evaluierung von Information Retrieval Systemen (2003) 0.00 
    0.0026934259 = product of:
  0.026934259 = sum of:
    0.026934259 = weight(_text_:web in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026934259 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
  4. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.00 
    9.045068E-4 = product of:
  0.009045068 = sum of:
    0.009045068 = product of:
      0.027135205 = sum of:
        0.027135205 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027135205 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  5. Marcus, S.: Textvergleich mit mehreren Mustern (2005) 0.00 
    5.2155275E-4 = product of:
  0.0052155275 = sum of:
    0.0052155275 = product of:
      0.015646582 = sum of:
        0.015646582 = weight(_text_:29 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015646582 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    13. 2.2007 20:56:29

Authors

Types

Themes