Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014) 0.06

0.057511814 = product of:
  0.0920189 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=1786,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=1786,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)

Abstract: Purpose - One core element of interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments is the assignment of search tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical review of current practice in developing those search tasks to test, observe or control task complexity and difficulty. Design/methodology/approach - Over 100 prior studies of IIR were examined in terms of how each defined task complexity and/or difficulty (or related concepts) and subsequently interpreted those concepts in the development of the assigned search tasks. Findings - Search task complexity is found to include three dimensions: multiplicity of subtasks or steps, multiplicity of facets, and indeterminability. Search task difficulty is based on an interaction between the search task and the attributes of the searcher or the attributes of the search situation. The paper highlights the anomalies in our use of these two concepts, concluding with suggestions for future methodological research related to search task complexity and difficulty. Originality/value - By analyzing and synthesizing current practices, this paper provides guidance for future experiments in IIR that involve these two constructs.
Content: Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Festschrift in honour of Nigel Ford
Date: 6. 4.2015 19:31:22
Source: Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.6, S.1118-1140

Colace, F.; Santo, M. de; Greco, L.; Napoletano, P.: Improving relevance feedback-based query expansion by the use of a weighted word pairs approach (2015) 0.05

0.052722443 = product of:
  0.105444886 = sum of:
    0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04338471 = score(doc=2263,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036299463 = score(doc=2263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016396983 = score(doc=2263,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=2263,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract: In this article, the use of a new term extraction method for query expansion (QE) in text retrieval is investigated. The new method expands the initial query with a structured representation made of weighted word pairs (WWP) extracted from a set of training documents (relevance feedback). Standard text retrieval systems can handle a WWP structure through custom Boolean weighted models. We experimented with both the explicit and pseudorelevance feedback schemas and compared the proposed term extraction method with others in the literature, such as KLD and RM3. Evaluations have been conducted on a number of test collections (Text REtrivel Conference [TREC]-6, -7, -8, -9, and -10). Results demonstrated that the QE method based on this new structure outperforms the baseline.
Source: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2223-2234
Theme: Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

Dang, E.K.F.; Luk, R.W.P.; Allan, J.: ¬A context-dependent relevance model (2016) 0.05

0.045597393 = product of:
  0.091194786 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=2778,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2778, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2778)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=2778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 2778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2778)
    0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01850135 = score(doc=2778,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2778, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2778)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=2778,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 2778, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract: Numerous past studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the relevance model (RM) for information retrieval (IR). This approach enables relevance or pseudo-relevance feedback to be incorporated within the language modeling framework of IR. In the traditional RM, the feedback information is used to improve the estimate of the query language model. In this article, we introduce an extension of RM in the setting of relevance feedback. Our method provides an additional way to incorporate feedback via the improvement of the document language models. Specifically, we make use of the context information of known relevant and nonrelevant documents to obtain weighted counts of query terms for estimating the document language models. The context information is based on the words (unigrams or bigrams) appearing within a text window centered on query terms. Experiments on several Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) collections show that our context-dependent relevance model can improve retrieval performance over the baseline RM. Together with previous studies within the BM25 framework, our current study demonstrates that the effectiveness of our method for using context information in IR is quite general and not limited to any specific retrieval model.
Source: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.582-593

Borlund, P.: ¬A study of the use of simulated work task situations in interactive information retrieval evaluations : a meta-evaluation (2016) 0.04

0.044285882 = product of:
  0.088571765 = sum of:
    0.023615643 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023615643 = score(doc=2880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
    0.038262997 = weight(_text_:use in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038262997 = score(doc=2880,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.30259922 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
    0.020450631 = weight(_text_:of in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020450631 = score(doc=2880,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31669703 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
    0.0062424885 = product of:
      0.012484977 = sum of:
        0.012484977 = weight(_text_:on in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012484977 = score(doc=2880,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report a study of how the test instrument of a simulated work task situation is used in empirical evaluations of interactive information retrieval (IIR) and reported in the research literature. In particular, the author is interested to learn whether the requirements of how to employ simulated work task situations are followed, and whether these requirements call for further highlighting and refinement. Design/methodology/approach - In order to study how simulated work task situations are used, the research literature in question is identified. This is done partly via citation analysis by use of Web of Science®, and partly by systematic search of online repositories. On this basis, 67 individual publications were identified and they constitute the sample of analysis. Findings - The analysis reveals a need for clarifications of how to use simulated work task situations in IIR evaluations. In particular, with respect to the design and creation of realistic simulated work task situations. There is a lack of tailoring of the simulated work task situations to the test participants. Likewise, the requirement to include the test participants' personal information needs is neglected. Further, there is a need to add and emphasise a requirement to depict the used simulated work task situations when reporting the IIR studies. Research limitations/implications - Insight about the use of simulated work task situations has implications for test design of IIR studies and hence the knowledge base generated on the basis of such studies. Originality/value - Simulated work task situations are widely used in IIR studies, and the present study is the first comprehensive study of the intended and unintended use of this test instrument since its introduction in the late 1990's. The paper addresses the need to carefully design and tailor simulated work task situations to suit the test participants in order to obtain the intended authentic and realistic IIR under study.
Source: Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.3, S.394-413

Angelini, M.; Fazzini, V.; Ferro, N.; Santucci, G.; Silvello, G.: CLAIRE: A combinatorial visual analytics system for information retrieval evaluation (2018) 0.04

0.041587155 = product of:
  0.08317431 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=5049,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02011309 = score(doc=5049,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract: Information Retrieval (IR) develops complex systems, constituted of several components, which aim at returning and optimally ranking the most relevant documents in response to user queries. In this context, experimental evaluation plays a central role, since it allows for measuring IR systems effectiveness, increasing the understanding of their functioning, and better directing the efforts for improving them. Current evaluation methodologies are limited by two major factors: (i) IR systems are evaluated as "black boxes", since it is not possible to decompose the contributions of the different components, e.g., stop lists, stemmers, and IR models; (ii) given that it is not possible to predict the effectiveness of an IR system, both academia and industry need to explore huge numbers of systems, originated by large combinatorial compositions of their components, to understand how they perform and how these components interact together. We propose a Combinatorial visuaL Analytics system for Information Retrieval Evaluation (CLAIRE) which allows for exploring and making sense of the performances of a large amount of IR systems, in order to quickly and intuitively grasp which system configurations are preferred, what are the contributions of the different components and how these components interact together. The CLAIRE system is then validated against use cases based on several test collections using a wide set of systems, generated by a combinatorial composition of several off-the-shelf components, representing the most common denominator almost always present in English IR systems. In particular, we validate the findings enabled by CLAIRE with respect to consolidated deep statistical analyses and we show that the CLAIRE system allows the generation of new insights, which were not detectable with traditional approaches.

Bashir, S.; Rauber, A.: On the relationship between query characteristics and IR functions retrieval bias (2011) 0.04

0.040188 = product of:
  0.107168 = sum of:
    0.07526039 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07526039 = score(doc=4628,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.60250396 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
    0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02087234 = score(doc=4628,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=4628,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract: Bias quantification of retrieval functions with the help of document retrievability scores has recently evolved as an important evaluation measure for recall-oriented retrieval applications. While numerous studies have evaluated retrieval bias of retrieval functions, solid validation of its impact on realistic types of queries is still limited. This is due to the lack of well-accepted criteria for query generation for estimating retrievability. Commonly, random queries are used for approximating documents retrievability due to the prohibitively large query space and time involved in processing all queries. Additionally, a cumulative retrievability score of documents over all queries is used for analyzing retrieval functions (retrieval) bias. However, this approach does not consider the difference between different query characteristics (QCs) and their influence on retrieval functions' bias quantification. This article provides an in-depth study of retrievability over different QCs. It analyzes the correlation of lower/higher retrieval bias with different query characteristics. The presence of strong correlation between retrieval bias and query characteristics in experiments indicates the possibility of determining retrieval bias of retrieval functions without processing an exhaustive query set. Experiments are validated on TREC Chemical Retrieval Track consisting of 1.2 million patent documents.
Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1515-1532

Ravana, S.D.; Taheri, M.S.; Rajagopal, P.: Document-based approach to improve the accuracy of pairwise comparison in evaluating information retrieval systems (2015) 0.04

0.039028626 = product of:
  0.07805725 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=2587,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
    0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02011309 = score(doc=2587,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=2587,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2587, 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=2587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract: Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a method to have more accurate results in comparing performance of the paired information retrieval (IR) systems with reference to the current method, which is based on the mean effectiveness scores of the systems across a set of identified topics/queries. Design/methodology/approach Based on the proposed approach, instead of the classic method of using a set of topic scores, the documents level scores are considered as the evaluation unit. These document scores are the defined document's weight, which play the role of the mean average precision (MAP) score of the systems as a significance test's statics. The experiments were conducted using the TREC 9 Web track collection. Findings The p-values generated through the two types of significance tests, namely the Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney show that by using the document level scores as an evaluation unit, the difference between IR systems is more significant compared with utilizing topic scores. Originality/value Utilizing a suitable test collection is a primary prerequisite for IR systems comparative evaluation. However, in addition to reusable test collections, having an accurate statistical testing is a necessity for these evaluations. The findings of this study will assist IR researchers to evaluate their retrieval systems and algorithms more accurately.
Date: 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
Source: Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.4, S.408-421

Rajagopal, P.; Ravana, S.D.; Koh, Y.S.; Balakrishnan, V.: Evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems using effort-based relevance judgment (2019) 0.04

0.038993403 = product of:
  0.07798681 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=5287,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=5287,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5287, 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=5287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract: Purpose The effort in addition to relevance is a major factor for satisfaction and utility of the document to the actual user. The purpose of this paper is to propose a method in generating relevance judgments that incorporate effort without human judges' involvement. Then the study determines the variation in system rankings due to low effort relevance judgment in evaluating retrieval systems at different depth of evaluation. Design/methodology/approach Effort-based relevance judgments are generated using a proposed boxplot approach for simple document features, HTML features and readability features. The boxplot approach is a simple yet repeatable approach in classifying documents' effort while ensuring outlier scores do not skew the grading of the entire set of documents. Findings The retrieval systems evaluation using low effort relevance judgments has a stronger influence on shallow depth of evaluation compared to deeper depth. It is proved that difference in the system rankings is due to low effort documents and not the number of relevant documents. Originality/value Hence, it is crucial to evaluate retrieval systems at shallow depth using low effort relevance judgments.
Date: 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
Source: Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.1, S.2-17

Vechtomova, O.: Facet-based opinion retrieval from blogs (2010) 0.03

0.033275984 = product of:
  0.08873595 = sum of:
    0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041327372 = score(doc=4225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
    0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463053 = score(doc=4225,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract: The paper presents methods of retrieving blog posts containing opinions about an entity expressed in the query. The methods use a lexicon of subjective words and phrases compiled from manually and automatically developed resources. One of the methods uses the Kullback-Leibler divergence to weight subjective words occurring near query terms in documents, another uses proximity between the occurrences of query terms and subjective words in documents, and the third combines both factors. Methods of structuring queries into facets, facet expansion using Wikipedia, and a facet-based retrieval are also investigated in this work. The methods were evaluated using the TREC 2007 and 2008 Blog track topics, and proved to be highly effective.

Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017) 0.03
```
0.03321368 = product of:
  0.08856981 = sum of:
    0.066007726 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066007726 = score(doc=3700,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=3700,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=3700,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
```
Abstract

Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.

Source

Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.3, S.509-527
Leiva-Mederos, A.; Senso, J.A.; Hidalgo-Delgado, Y.; Hipola, P.: Working framework of semantic interoperability for CRIS with heterogeneous data sources (2017) 0.03
```
0.0309533 = product of:
  0.0619066 = sum of:
    0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016698781 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
    0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01711173 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
    0.020450631 = weight(_text_:of in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020450631 = score(doc=3706,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31669703 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
    0.007645456 = product of:
      0.015290912 = sum of:
        0.015290912 = weight(_text_:on in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015290912 = score(doc=3706,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16835764 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)
```
Abstract

Purpose Information from Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) is stored in different formats, in platforms that are not compatible, or even in independent networks. It would be helpful to have a well-defined methodology to allow for management data processing from a single site, so as to take advantage of the capacity to link disperse data found in different systems, platforms, sources and/or formats. Based on functionalities and materials of the VLIR project, the purpose of this paper is to present a model that provides for interoperability by means of semantic alignment techniques and metadata crosswalks, and facilitates the fusion of information stored in diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach After reviewing the state of the art regarding the diverse mechanisms for achieving semantic interoperability, the paper analyzes the following: the specific coverage of the data sets (type of data, thematic coverage and geographic coverage); the technical specifications needed to retrieve and analyze a distribution of the data set (format, protocol, etc.); the conditions of re-utilization (copyright and licenses); and the "dimensions" included in the data set as well as the semantics of these dimensions (the syntax and the taxonomies of reference). The semantic interoperability framework here presented implements semantic alignment and metadata crosswalk to convert information from three different systems (ABCD, Moodle and DSpace) to integrate all the databases in a single RDF file. Findings The paper also includes an evaluation based on the comparison - by means of calculations of recall and precision - of the proposed model and identical consultations made on Open Archives Initiative and SQL, in order to estimate its efficiency. The results have been satisfactory enough, due to the fact that the semantic interoperability facilitates the exact retrieval of information. Originality/value The proposed model enhances management of the syntactic and semantic interoperability of the CRIS system designed. In a real setting of use it achieves very positive results.

Source

Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.3, S.481-499
Lu, K.; Kipp, M.E.I.: Understanding the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different retrieval environments : an experimental study on medical collections (2014) 0.03
```
0.0303826 = product of:
  0.081020266 = sum of:
    0.055226028 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055226028 = score(doc=1215,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.442117 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
    0.014758972 = weight(_text_:of in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014758972 = score(doc=1215,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=1215,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
```
Abstract

This study investigates the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different environments through controlled experiments. Three test collections were built. The first collection tests the impact of tags on retrieval performance when only the title and abstract are available (the abstract environment). The second tests the impact of tags when the full text is available (the full-text environment). The third compares the retrieval effectiveness of tags and author keywords in the abstract environment. In addition, both single-word queries and phrase queries are tested to understand the impact of different query types. Our findings suggest that including tags and author keywords in indexes can enhance recall but may improve or worsen average precision depending on retrieval environments and query types. Indexing tags and author keywords for searching using phrase queries in the abstract environment showed improved average precision, whereas indexing tags for searching using single-word queries in the full-text environment led to a significant drop in average precision. The comparison between tags and author keywords in the abstract environment indicates that they have comparable impact on average precision, but author keywords are more advantageous in enhancing recall. The findings from this study provide useful implications for designing retrieval systems that incorporate tags and author keywords.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.483-500
Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011) 0.03
```
0.02968612 = product of:
  0.079162985 = sum of:
    0.046674512 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046674512 = score(doc=4197,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
    0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01850135 = score(doc=4197,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4197, 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=4197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
```
Abstract

The Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) provides a TREC-like platform for evaluating content-oriented XML retrieval systems. Since 2007, INEX has been using a set of precision-recall based metrics for its ad hoc tasks. The authors investigate the reliability and robustness of these focused retrieval measures, and of the INEX pooling method. They explore four specific questions: How reliable are the metrics when assessments are incomplete, or when query sets are small? What is the minimum pool/query-set size that can be used to reliably evaluate systems? Can the INEX collections be used to fairly evaluate "new" systems that did not participate in the pooling process? And, for a fixed amount of assessment effort, would this effort be better spent in thoroughly judging a few queries, or in judging many queries relatively superficially? The authors' findings validate properties of precision-recall-based metrics observed in document retrieval settings. Early precision measures are found to be more error-prone and less stable under incomplete judgments and small topic-set sizes. They also find that system rankings remain largely unaffected even when assessment effort is substantially (but systematically) reduced, and confirm that the INEX collections remain usable when evaluating nonparticipating systems. Finally, they observe that for a fixed amount of effort, judging shallow pools for many queries is better than judging deep pools for a smaller set of queries. However, when judging only a random sample of a pool, it is better to completely judge fewer topics than to partially judge many topics. This result confirms the effectiveness of pooling methods.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:20:56

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.375-394

Al-Maskari, A.; Sanderson, M.: ¬A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval (2010) 0.03

0.027734853 = product of:
  0.07395961 = sum of:
    0.050615493 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050615493 = score(doc=3447,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=3447,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=3447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract: The authors investigate factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval. It is evident from this study that user satisfaction is a subjective variable, which can be influenced by several factors such as system effectiveness, user effectiveness, user effort, and user characteristics and expectations. Therefore, information retrieval evaluators should consider all these factors in obtaining user satisfaction and in using it as a criterion of system effectiveness. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the relationship between user satisfaction and system effectiveness; this study has substantiated these findings and supports using user satisfaction as a criterion of system effectiveness.
Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.859-868

White, H.D.: Relevance theory and distributions of judgments in document retrieval (2017) 0.02

0.024856936 = product of:
  0.06628516 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=5099,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=5099,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=5099,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract: This article extends relevance theory (RT) from linguistic pragmatics into information retrieval. Using more than 50 retrieval experiments from the literature as examples, it applies RT to explain the frequency distributions of documents on relevance scales with three or more points. The scale points, which judges in experiments must consider in addition to queries and documents, are communications from researchers. In RT, the relevance of a communication varies directly with its cognitive effects and inversely with the effort of processing it. Researchers define and/or label the scale points to measure the cognitive effects of documents on judges. However, they apparently assume that all scale points as presented are equally easy for judges to process. Yet the notion that points cost variable effort explains fairly well the frequency distributions of judgments across them. By hypothesis, points that cost more effort are chosen by judges less frequently. Effort varies with the vagueness or strictness of scale-point labels and definitions. It is shown that vague scales tend to produce U- or V-shaped distributions, while strict scales tend to produce right-skewed distributions. These results reinforce the paper's more general argument that RT clarifies the concept of relevance in the dialogues of retrieval evaluation.

Thornley, C.V.; Johnson, A.C.; Smeaton, A.F.; Lee, H.: ¬The scholarly impact of TRECVid (2003-2009) (2011) 0.02

0.024585735 = product of:
  0.06556196 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=4363,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 4363, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4363)
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 4363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=4363,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 4363, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4363)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 4363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=4363,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 4363, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract: This paper reports on an investigation into the scholarly impact of the TRECVid (Text Retrieval and Evaluation Conference, Video Retrieval Evaluation) benchmarking conferences between 2003 and 2009. The contribution of TRECVid to research in video retrieval is assessed by analyzing publication content to show the development of techniques and approaches over time and by analyzing publication impact through publication numbers and citation analysis. Popular conference and journal venues for TRECVid publications are identified in terms of number of citations received. For a selection of participants at different career stages, the relative importance of TRECVid publications in terms of citations vis à vis their other publications is investigated. TRECVid, as an evaluation conference, provides data on which research teams 'scored' highly against the evaluation criteria and the relationship between 'top scoring' teams at TRECVid and the 'top scoring' papers in terms of citations is analyzed. A strong relationship was found between 'success' at TRECVid and 'success' at citations both for high scoring and low scoring teams. The implications of the study in terms of the value of TRECVid as a research activity, and the value of bibliometric analysis as a research evaluation tool, are discussed.
Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.4, S.613-627

Tamine, L.; Chouquet, C.; Palmer, T.: Analysis of biomedical and health queries : lessons learned from TREC and CLEF evaluation benchmarks (2015) 0.02

0.024026297 = product of:
  0.06407013 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=2341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02011309 = score(doc=2341,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=2341,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract: A large body of research work examined, from both the query side and the user behavior side, the characteristics of medical- and health-related searches. One of the core issues in medical information retrieval (IR) is diversity of tasks that lead to diversity of categories of information needs and queries. From the evaluation perspective, another related and challenging issue is the limited availability of appropriate test collections allowing the experimental validation of medically task oriented IR techniques and systems. In this paper, we explore the peculiarities of TREC and CLEF medically oriented tasks and queries through the analysis of the differences and the similarities between queries across tasks, with respect to length, specificity, and clarity features and then study their effect on retrieval performance. We show that, even for expert oriented queries, language specificity level varies significantly across tasks as well as search difficulty. Additional findings highlight that query clarity factors are task dependent and that query terms specificity based on domain-specific terminology resources is not significantly linked to term rareness in the document collection. The lessons learned from our study could serve as starting points for the design of future task-based medical information retrieval frameworks.
Source: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2626-2642

Li, J.; Zhang, P.; Song, D.; Wu, Y.: Understanding an enriched multidimensional user relevance model by analyzing query logs (2017) 0.02

0.023862792 = product of:
  0.06363411 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=3961,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
    0.014968331 = weight(_text_:of in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968331 = score(doc=3961,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
    0.013242318 = product of:
      0.026484637 = sum of:
        0.026484637 = weight(_text_:on in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026484637 = score(doc=3961,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract: Modeling multidimensional relevance in information retrieval (IR) has attracted much attention in recent years. However, most existing studies are conducted through relatively small-scale user studies, which may not reflect a real-world and natural search scenario. In this article, we propose to study the multidimensional user relevance model (MURM) on large scale query logs, which record users' various search behaviors (e.g., query reformulations, clicks and dwelling time, etc.) in natural search settings. We advance an existing MURM model (including five dimensions: topicality, novelty, reliability, understandability, and scope) by providing two additional dimensions, that is, interest and habit. The two new dimensions represent personalized relevance judgment on retrieved documents. Further, for each dimension in the enriched MURM model, a set of computable features are formulated. By conducting extensive document ranking experiments on Bing's query logs and TREC session Track data, we systematically investigated the impact of each dimension on retrieval performance and gained a series of insightful findings which may bring benefits for the design of future IR systems.
Source: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.12, S.2743-2754

Balog, K.; Schuth, A.; Dekker, P.; Tavakolpoursaleh, N.; Schaer, P.; Chuang, P.-Y.: Overview of the TREC 2016 Open Search track Academic Search Edition (2016) 0.02

0.023003161 = product of:
  0.061341763 = sum of:
    0.033397563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033397563 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.0154592255 = weight(_text_:of in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0154592255 = score(doc=43,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
    0.012484977 = product of:
      0.024969954 = sum of:
        0.024969954 = weight(_text_:on in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024969954 = score(doc=43,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract: We present the TREC Open Search track, which represents a new evaluation paradigm for information retrieval. It offers the possibility for researchers to evaluate their approaches in a live setting, with real, unsuspecting users of an existing search engine. The first edition of the track focuses on the academic search domain and features the ad-hoc scientific literature search task. We report on experiments with three different academic search engines: Cite-SeerX, SSOAR, and Microsoft Academic Search.

Kelly, D.; Sugimoto, C.R.: ¬A systematic review of interactive information retrieval evaluation studies, 1967-2006 (2013) 0.02
```
0.022621073 = product of:
  0.060322862 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=684,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
    0.023000197 = weight(_text_:of in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023000197 = score(doc=684,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=684,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 684, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
```
Abstract

With the increasing number and diversity of search tools available, interest in the evaluation of search systems, particularly from a user perspective, has grown among researchers. More researchers are designing and evaluating interactive information retrieval (IIR) systems and beginning to innovate in evaluation methods. Maturation of a research specialty relies on the ability to replicate research, provide standards for measurement and analysis, and understand past endeavors. This article presents a historical overview of 40 years of IIR evaluation studies using the method of systematic review. A total of 2,791 journal and conference units were manually examined and 127 articles were selected for analysis in this study, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These articles were systematically coded using features such as author, publication date, sources and references, and properties of the research method used in the articles, such as number of subjects, tasks, corpora, and measures. Results include data describing the growth of IIR studies over time, the most frequently occurring and cited authors and sources, and the most common types of corpora and measures used. An additional product of this research is a bibliography of IIR evaluation research that can be used by students, teachers, and those new to the area. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first historical, systematic characterization of the IIR evaluation literature, including the documentation of methods and measures used by researchers in this specialty.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.745-770

Search (35 results, page 1 of 2)

Authors

Types

Themes