-
Al-Maskari, A.; Sanderson, M.: ¬A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval (2010)
0.00
0.0028607734 = product of:
0.028607734 = sum of:
0.028607734 = product of:
0.0858232 = sum of:
0.0858232 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0858232 = score(doc=3447,freq=5.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.5849073 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.859-868
- Year
- 2010
-
Vechtomova, O.: Facet-based opinion retrieval from blogs (2010)
0.00
0.0028607734 = product of:
0.028607734 = sum of:
0.028607734 = product of:
0.0858232 = sum of:
0.0858232 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0858232 = score(doc=4225,freq=5.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.5849073 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.71-88
- Year
- 2010
-
Naderi, H.; Rumpler, B.: PERCIRS: a system to combine personalized and collaborative information retrieval (2010)
0.00
0.0016347278 = product of:
0.016347278 = sum of:
0.016347278 = product of:
0.04904183 = sum of:
0.04904183 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04904183 = score(doc=3960,freq=5.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.33423275 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.4, S.532-562
- Year
- 2010
-
Munkelt, J.; Schaer, P.; Lepsky, K.: Towards an IR test collection for the German National Library (2018)
0.00
0.0015508389 = product of:
0.015508389 = sum of:
0.015508389 = product of:
0.046525165 = sum of:
0.046525165 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046525165 = score(doc=4311,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.31708103 = fieldWeight in 4311, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4311)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Abstract
- Automatic content indexing is one of the innovations that are increasingly changing the way libraries work. In theory, it promises a cataloguing service that would hardly be possible with humans in terms of speed, quantity and maybe quality. The German National Library (DNB) has also recognised this potential and is increasingly relying on the automatic indexing of their catalogue content. The DNB took a major step in this direction in 2017, which was announced in two papers. The announcement was rather restrained, but the content of the papers is all the more explosive for the library community: Since September 2017, the DNB has discontinued the intellectual indexing of series Band H and has switched to an automatic process for these series. The subject indexing of online publications (series O) has been purely automatical since 2010; from September 2017, monographs and periodicals published outside the publishing industry and university publications will no longer be indexed by people. This raises the question: What is the quality of the automatic indexing compared to the manual work or in other words to which degree can the automatic indexing replace people without a signi cant drop in regards to quality?
-
Losada, D.E.; Parapar, J.; Barreiro, A.: Multi-armed bandits for adjudicating documents in pooling-based evaluation of information retrieval systems (2017)
0.00
0.0014392043 = product of:
0.0143920425 = sum of:
0.0143920425 = product of:
0.043176126 = sum of:
0.043176126 = weight(_text_:problem in 5098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043176126 = score(doc=5098,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 5098, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5098)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Abstract
- Evaluating Information Retrieval systems is crucial to making progress in search technologies. Evaluation is often based on assembling reference collections consisting of documents, queries and relevance judgments done by humans. In large-scale environments, exhaustively judging relevance becomes infeasible. Instead, only a pool of documents is judged for relevance. By selectively choosing documents from the pool we can optimize the number of judgments required to identify a given number of relevant documents. We argue that this iterative selection process can be naturally modeled as a reinforcement learning problem and propose innovative and formal adjudication methods based on multi-armed bandits. Casting document judging as a multi-armed bandit problem is not only theoretically appealing, but also leads to highly effective adjudication methods. Under this bandit allocation framework, we consider stationary and non-stationary models and propose seven new document adjudication methods (five stationary methods and two non-stationary variants). Our paper also reports a series of experiments performed to thoroughly compare our new methods against current adjudication methods. This comparative study includes existing methods designed for pooling-based evaluation and existing methods designed for metasearch. Our experiments show that our theoretically grounded adjudication methods can substantially minimize the assessment effort.
-
Borlund, P.: ¬A study of the use of simulated work task situations in interactive information retrieval evaluations : a meta-evaluation (2016)
0.00
9.179433E-4 = product of:
0.009179433 = sum of:
0.009179433 = product of:
0.027538298 = sum of:
0.027538298 = weight(_text_:1990 in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027538298 = score(doc=2880,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.1991816 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- 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.
-
Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011)
0.00
6.927037E-4 = product of:
0.0069270367 = sum of:
0.0069270367 = product of:
0.02078111 = sum of:
0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02078111 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:20:56
-
Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011)
0.00
6.927037E-4 = product of:
0.0069270367 = sum of:
0.0069270367 = product of:
0.02078111 = sum of:
0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02078111 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Date
- 12. 7.2011 18:29:22
-
Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014)
0.00
6.927037E-4 = product of:
0.0069270367 = sum of:
0.0069270367 = product of:
0.02078111 = sum of:
0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02078111 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Date
- 6. 4.2015 19:31:22
-
Ravana, S.D.; Taheri, M.S.; Rajagopal, P.: Document-based approach to improve the accuracy of pairwise comparison in evaluating information retrieval systems (2015)
0.00
6.927037E-4 = product of:
0.0069270367 = sum of:
0.0069270367 = product of:
0.02078111 = sum of:
0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02078111 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Rajagopal, P.; Ravana, S.D.; Koh, Y.S.; Balakrishnan, V.: Evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems using effort-based relevance judgment (2019)
0.00
6.927037E-4 = product of:
0.0069270367 = sum of:
0.0069270367 = product of:
0.02078111 = sum of:
0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02078111 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
