Search (107 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Petrelli, D.: On the role of user-centred evaluation in the advancement of interactive information retrieval (2008) 0.04 
    0.03849499 = product of:
  0.07698998 = sum of:
    0.02143378 = weight(_text_:information in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02143378 = score(doc=2026,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.055556197 = sum of:
      0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02331961 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
      0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032236587 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the role of user-centred evaluations as an essential method for researching interactive information retrieval. It draws mainly on the work carried out during the Clarity Project where different user-centred evaluations were run during the lifecycle of a cross-language information retrieval system. The iterative testing was not only instrumental to the development of a usable system, but it enhanced our knowledge of the potential, impact, and actual use of cross-language information retrieval technology. Indeed the role of the user evaluation was dual: by testing a specific prototype it was possible to gain a micro-view and assess the effectiveness of each component of the complex system; by cumulating the result of all the evaluations (in total 43 people were involved) it was possible to build a macro-view of how cross-language retrieval would impact on users and their tasks. By showing the richness of results that can be acquired, this paper aims at stimulating researchers into considering user-centred evaluations as a flexible, adaptable and comprehensive technique for investigating non-traditional information access systems.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38
  2. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.03 
    0.0339073 = product of:
  0.0678146 = sum of:
    0.022683382 = weight(_text_:information in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022683382 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
    0.04513122 = product of:
      0.09026244 = sum of:
        0.09026244 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09026244 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.3-36
  3. Larsen, B.; Ingwersen, P.; Lund, B.: Data fusion according to the principle of polyrepresentation (2009) 0.03 
    0.026805215 = product of:
  0.05361043 = sum of:
    0.0091654705 = weight(_text_:information in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0091654705 = score(doc=2752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
    0.04444496 = sum of:
      0.01865569 = weight(_text_:technology in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01865569 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.02578927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02578927 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047586527 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, 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=2752)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    We report data fusion experiments carried out on the four best-performing retrieval models from TREC 5. Three were conceptually/algorithmically very different from one another; one was algorithmically similar to one of the former. The objective of the test was to observe the performance of the 11 logical data fusion combinations compared to the performance of the four individual models and their intermediate fusions when following the principle of polyrepresentation. This principle is based on cognitive IR perspective (Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005) and implies that each retrieval model is regarded as a representation of a unique interpretation of information retrieval (IR). It predicts that only fusions of very different, but equally good, IR models may outperform each constituent as well as their intermediate fusions. Two kinds of experiments were carried out. One tested restricted fusions, which entails that only the inner disjoint overlap documents between fused models are ranked. The second set of experiments was based on traditional data fusion methods. The experiments involved the 30 TREC 5 topics that contain more than 44 relevant documents. In all tests, the Borda and CombSUM scoring methods were used. Performance was measured by precision and recall, with document cutoff values (DCVs) at 100 and 15 documents, respectively. Results show that restricted fusions made of two, three, or four cognitively/algorithmically very different retrieval models perform significantly better than do the individual models at DCV100. At DCV15, however, the results of polyrepresentative fusion were less predictable. The traditional fusion method based on polyrepresentation principles demonstrates a clear picture of performance at both DCV levels and verifies the polyrepresentation predictions for data fusion in IR. Data fusion improves retrieval performance over their constituent IR models only if the models all are quite conceptually/algorithmically dissimilar and equally and well performing, in that order of importance.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:48:28
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.646-654
  4. Newby, G.B.: Cognitive space and information space (2001) 0.02 
    0.020744089 = product of:
  0.041488178 = sum of:
    0.02749641 = weight(_text_:information in 6977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02749641 = score(doc=6977,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 6977, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6977)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 6977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=6977,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 6977, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6977)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article works towards realization of exosomatic memory for information systems. In exosomatic memory systems, the information spaces of systems will be consistent with the cognitive spaces of their human users. A method for measuring concept relations in human cognitive space is presented: the paired comparison survey with Principal Components Analysis. A study to measure the cognitive spaces of 16 research participants is presented. Items measured include relations among seven TREC topic statements as well as 17 concepts from the topic statements. A method for automatically generating information spaces from document collections is presented that uses term cooccurrence, eigensystems analysis, and Principal Components Analysis. The extent of similarity between the cognitive spaces and the information spaces, which were derived independently from each other, is measured. A strong similarity between the information spaces and the cognitive spaces are found, indicating that the methods described may have good utility for working towards information systems that operate as exosomatic memories
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.12, S.1026-1048
  5. Voorhees, E.M.: Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) (2009) 0.02 
    0.018493315 = product of:
  0.03698663 = sum of:
    0.018330941 = weight(_text_:information in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018330941 = score(doc=3890,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
    0.01865569 = product of:
      0.03731138 = sum of:
        0.03731138 = weight(_text_:technology in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03731138 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This entry summarizes the history, results, and impact of the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), a workshop series designed to support the information retrieval community by building the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of retrieval technology.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  6. Morse, E.; Lewis, M.; Olsen, K.A.: Testing visual information retrieval methodologies case study : comparative analysis of textual, icon, graphical, and "spring" displays (2002) 0.02 
    0.017984057 = product of:
  0.035968114 = sum of:
    0.019644385 = weight(_text_:information in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019644385 = score(doc=191,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
    0.016323728 = product of:
      0.032647457 = sum of:
        0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032647457 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Although many different visual information retrieval systems have been proposed, few have been tested, and where testing has been performed, results were often inconclusive. Further, there is very little evidence of benchmarking systems against a common standard. An approach for testing novel interfaces is proposed that uses bottom-up, stepwise testing to allow evaluation of a visualization, itself, rather than restricting evaluation to the system instantiating it. This approach not only makes it easier to control variables, but the tests are also easier to perform. The methodology will be presented through a case study, where a new visualization technique is compared to more traditional ways of presenting data
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.1, S.28-40
  7. Della Mea, V.; Mizzaro, S.: Measuring retrieval effectiveness : a new proposal and a first experimental validation (2004) 0.02 
    0.017984057 = product of:
  0.035968114 = sum of:
    0.019644385 = weight(_text_:information in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019644385 = score(doc=2263,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.016323728 = product of:
      0.032647457 = sum of:
        0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032647457 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Most common effectiveness measures for information retrieval systems are based an the assumptions of binary relevance (either a document is relevant to a given query or it is not) and binary retrieval (either a document is retrieved or it is not). In this article, these assumptions are questioned, and a new measure named ADM (average distance measure) is proposed, discussed from a conceptual point of view, and experimentally validated an Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) data. Both conceptual analysis and experimental evidence demonstrate ADM's adequacy in measuring the effectiveness of information retrieval systems. Some potential problems about precision and recall are also highlighted and discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.530-543
  8. King, D.W.: Blazing new trails : in celebration of an audacious career (2000) 0.02 
    0.01798106 = product of:
  0.03596212 = sum of:
    0.019843826 = weight(_text_:information in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019843826 = score(doc=1184,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.016118294 = product of:
      0.032236587 = sum of:
        0.032236587 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032236587 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    I had the distinct pleasure of working with Pauline Atherton (Cochrane) during the 1960s, a period that can be considered the heyday of automated information system design and evaluation in the United States. I first met Pauline at the 1962 American Documentation Institute annual meeting in North Hollywood, Florida. My company, Westat Research Analysts, had recently been awarded a contract by the U.S. Patent Office to provide statistical support for the design of experiments with automated information retrieval systems. I was asked to attend the meeting to learn more about information retrieval systems and to begin informing others of U.S. Patent Office activities in this area. At one session, Pauline and I questioned a speaker about the research that he presented. Pauline's questions concerned the logic of their approach and mine, the statistical aspects. After the session, she came over to talk to me and we began a professional and personal friendship that continues to this day. During the 1960s, Pauline was involved in several important information-retrieval projects including a series of studies for the American Institute of Physics, a dissertation examining the relevance of retrieved documents, and development and evaluation of an online information-retrieval system. I had the opportunity to work with Pauline and her colleagues an four of those projects and will briefly describe her work in the 1960s.
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science
  9. Ding, C.H.Q.: ¬A probabilistic model for Latent Semantic Indexing (2005) 0.02 
    0.016717333 = product of:
  0.033434667 = sum of:
    0.0194429 = weight(_text_:information in 3459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0194429 = score(doc=3459,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3459, 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=3459)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 3459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=3459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI), when applied to semantic space built an text collections, improves information retrieval, information filtering, and word sense disambiguation. A new dual probability model based an the similarity concepts is introduced to provide deeper understanding of LSI. Semantic associations can be quantitatively characterized by their statistical significance, the likelihood. Semantic dimensions containing redundant and noisy information can be separated out and should be ignored because their negative contribution to the overall statistical significance. LSI is the optimal solution of the model. The peak in the likelihood curve indicates the existence of an intrinsic semantic dimension. The importance of LSI dimensions follows the Zipf-distribution, indicating that LSI dimensions represent latent concepts. Document frequency of words follows the Zipf distribution, and the number of distinct words follows log-normal distribution. Experiments an five standard document collections confirm and illustrate the analysis.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.6, S.597-608
  10. Kilgour, F.: ¬An experiment using coordinate title word searches (2004) 0.02 
    0.016181652 = product of:
  0.032363303 = sum of:
    0.016039573 = weight(_text_:information in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016039573 = score(doc=2065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
    0.016323728 = product of:
      0.032647457 = sum of:
        0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032647457 = score(doc=2065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study, the fourth and last of a series designed to produce new information to improve retrievability of books in libraries, explores the effectiveness of retrieving a known-item book using words from titles only. From daily printouts of circulation records at the Walter Royal Davis Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 749 titles were taken and then searched an the 4-million entry catalog at the library of the University of Michigan. The principal finding was that searches produced titles having personal authors 81.4% of the time and anonymous titles 91.5% of the time; these figures are 15 and 5%, respectively, lower than the lowest findings presented in the previous three articles of this series (Kilgour, 1995; 1997; 2001).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.74-80
  11. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.K.: ¬The Text REtrieval Conference (2005) 0.02 
    0.016070582 = product of:
  0.032141164 = sum of:
    0.013890678 = weight(_text_:information in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013890678 = score(doc=5082,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16628155 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.018250484 = product of:
      0.036500968 = sum of:
        0.036500968 = weight(_text_:technology in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036500968 = score(doc=5082,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.25753677 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Text retrieval technology targets a problem that is all too familiar: finding relevant information in large stores of electronic documents. The problem is an old one, with the first research conference devoted to the subject held in 1958 [11]. Since then the problem has continued to grow as more information is created in electronic form and more people gain electronic access. The advent of the World Wide Web, where anyone can publish so everyone must search, is a graphic illustration of the need for effective retrieval technology. The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a workshop series designed to build the infrastructure necessary for the large-scale evaluation of text retrieval technology, thereby accelerating its transfer into the commercial sector. The series is sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Defense. At the time of this writing, there have been twelve TREC workshops and preparations for the thirteenth workshop are under way. Participants in the workshops have been drawn from the academic, commercial, and government sectors, and have included representatives from more than twenty different countries. These collective efforts have accomplished a great deal: a variety of large test collections have been built for both traditional ad hoc retrieval and related tasks such as cross-language retrieval, speech retrieval, and question answering; retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled; and many commercial retrieval systems now contain technology first developed in TREC.
    This book chronicles the evolution of retrieval systems over the course of TREC. To be sure, there has already been a wealth of information written about TREC. Each conference has produced a proceedings containing general overviews of the various tasks, papers written by the individual participants, and evaluation results.1 Reports on expanded versions of TREC experiments frequently appear in the wider information retrieval literature. There also have been special issues of journals devoted to particular TRECs [3; 13] and particular TREC tasks [6; 4]. No single volume could hope to be a comprehensive record of all TREC-related research. Instead, this book looks to distill the overabundance of detail into a manageable whole that summarizes the main lessons learned from TREC. The book consists of three main parts. The first part contains introductory and descriptive chapters on TREC's history, the major products of TREC (the test collections), and the retrieval evaluation methodology. Part II includes chapters describing the major TREC ''tracks,'' evaluations of special subtopics such as cross-language retrieval and question answering. Part III contains contributions from research groups that have participated in TREC. The epilogue to the book is written by Karen Sparck Jones, who reflects on the impact TREC has had on the information retrieval field. The structure of this introductory chapter is similar to that of the book as a whole. The chapter begins with a short history of TREC; expanded descriptions of specific aspects of the history are included in subsequent chapters to make those chapters self-contained. Section 1.2 describes TREC's track structure, which has been responsible for the growth of TREC and allows TREC to adapt to changing needs. The final section lists both the major accomplishments of TREC and some remaining challenges.
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  12. Bar-Ilan, J.: Methods for measuring search engine performance over time (2002) 0.02 
    0.015808811 = product of:
  0.031617623 = sum of:
    0.012961932 = weight(_text_:information in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012961932 = score(doc=305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
    0.01865569 = product of:
      0.03731138 = sum of:
        0.03731138 = weight(_text_:technology in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03731138 = score(doc=305,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.308-319
  13. Alemayehu, N.: Analysis of performance variation using quey expansion (2003) 0.02 
    0.015414905 = product of:
  0.03082981 = sum of:
    0.016838044 = weight(_text_:information in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016838044 = score(doc=1454,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=1454,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Information retrieval performance evaluation is commonly made based an the classical recall and precision based figures or graphs. However, important information indicating causes for variation may remain hidden under the average recall and precision figures. Identifying significant causes for variation can help researchers and developers to focus an opportunities for improvement that underlay the averages. This article presents a case study showing the potential of a statistical repeated measures analysis of variance for testing the significance of factors in retrieval performance variation. The TREC-9 Query Track performance data is used as a case study and the factors studied are retrieval method, topic, and their interaction. The results show that retrieval method, topic, and their interaction are all significant. A topic level analysis is also made to see the nature of variation in the performance of retrieval methods across topics. The observed retrieval performances of expansion runs are truly significant improvements for most of the topics. Analyses of the effect of query expansion an document ranking confirm that expansion affects ranking positively.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.379-391
  14. Vakkari, P.; Sormunen, E.: ¬The influence of relevance levels an the effectiveness of interactive information retrieval (2004) 0.02 
    0.015414905 = product of:
  0.03082981 = sum of:
    0.016838044 = weight(_text_:information in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016838044 = score(doc=2884,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=2884,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this paper, we focus an the effect of graded relevance an the results of interactive information retrieval (IR) experiments based an assigned search tasks in a test collection. A group of 26 subjects searched for four Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) topics using automatic and interactive query expansion based an relevance feedback. The TREC- and user-suggested pools of relevant documents were reassessed an a four-level relevance scale. The results show that the users could identify nearly all highly relevant documents and about half of the marginal ones. Users also selected a fair number of irrelevant documents for query expansion. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of query expansion is closely related to the searchers' success in retrieving and identifying highly relevant documents for feedback. The implications of the results an interpreting the findings of past experiments with liberal relevance thresholds are also discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.963-969
  15. Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000) 0.01 
    0.0145317 = product of:
  0.0290634 = sum of:
    0.00972145 = weight(_text_:information in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00972145 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
    0.019341951 = product of:
      0.038683902 = sum of:
        0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038683902 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 32(2000) no.1, S.4-8
  16. Sun, Y.; Kantor, P.B.: Cross-evaluation : a new model for information system evaluation (2006) 0.01 
    0.01393111 = product of:
  0.02786222 = sum of:
    0.016202414 = weight(_text_:information in 5048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016202414 = score(doc=5048,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5048, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5048)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 5048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=5048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this article, we introduce a new information system evaluation method and report on its application to a collaborative information seeking system, AntWorld. The key innovation of the new method is to use precisely the same group of users who work with the system as judges, a system we call Cross-Evaluation. In the new method, we also propose to assess the system at the level of task completion. The obvious potential limitation of this method is that individuals may be inclined to think more highly of the materials that they themselves have found and are almost certain to think more highly of their own work product than they do of the products built by others. The keys to neutralizing this problem are careful design and a corresponding analytical model based on analysis of variance. We model the several measures of task completion with a linear model of five effects, describing the users who interact with the system, the system used to finish the task, the task itself, the behavior of individuals as judges, and the selfjudgment bias. Our analytical method successfully isolates the effect of each variable. This approach provides a successful model to make concrete the "threerealities" paradigm, which calls for "real tasks," "real users," and "real systems."
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.5, S.614-628
  17. Zhang, X.: Collaborative relevance judgment : a group consensus method for evaluating user search performance (2002) 0.01 
    0.013869986 = product of:
  0.027739972 = sum of:
    0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013748205 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 250, 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=250)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Relevance judgment has traditionally been considered a personal and subjective matter. A user's search and the search result are treated as an isolated event. To consider the collaborative nature of information retrieval (IR) in a group/organization or even societal context, this article proposes a method that measures relevance based on group/peer consensus. The method can be used in IR experiments. In this method, the relevance of a document is decided by group consensus, or more specifically, by the number of users (or experiment participants) who retrieve it for the same search question. The more users who retrieve it, the more relevant the document will be considered. A user's search performance can be measured by a relevance score based on this notion. The article reports the results of an experiment using this method to compare the search performance of different types of users. Related issues with the method and future directions are also discussed
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.3, S.220-231
  18. Maglaughlin, K.L.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: User perspectives an relevance criteria : a comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgements (2002) 0.01 
    0.013869986 = product of:
  0.027739972 = sum of:
    0.013748205 = weight(_text_:information in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013748205 = score(doc=5201,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5201, 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=5201)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this issue Maglaughin and Sonnenwald provided 12 graduate students with searches related to the student's work and asked them to judge the twenty most recent retrieved representations by highlighting passages thought to contribute to relevance, marking out passages detracting from relevance, and providing a relevant, partially relevant or relevant judgement on each. By recorded interview they were asked about how these decisions were made and to describe the three classes of judgement. The union of criteria identified in past studies did not seem to fully capture the information supplied so a new set was produced and coding agreement found to be adequate. Twenty-nine criteria were identified and grouped into six categories based upon the focus of the criterion. Multiple criteria are used for most judgements, and most criteria may have either a positive or negative effect. Content was the most frequently mentioned criterion.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.5, S.327-342
  19. Pirkola, A.; Järvelin, K.: Employing the resolution power of search keys (2001) 0.01 
    0.01383271 = product of:
  0.02766542 = sum of:
    0.011341691 = weight(_text_:information in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011341691 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
    0.016323728 = product of:
      0.032647457 = sum of:
        0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032647457 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.7, S.575-583
  20. Huang, M.-h.; Wang, H.-y.: ¬The influence of document presentation order and number of documents judged an users' judgments of relevance (2004) 0.01 
    0.01383271 = product of:
  0.02766542 = sum of:
    0.011341691 = weight(_text_:information in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011341691 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
    0.016323728 = product of:
      0.032647457 = sum of:
        0.032647457 = weight(_text_:technology in 2885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032647457 = score(doc=2885,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 2885, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2885)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.970-979

Authors

Types

  • a 105
  • m 2
  • el 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications