Search (65 results, page 1 of 4)

0.04341168 = product of:
  0.08682336 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
    0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07824052 = score(doc=438,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the architecture and implementation of the Semantic Web Search Engine (SWSE). Following traditional search engine architecture, SWSE consists of crawling, data enhancing, indexing and a user interface for search, browsing and retrieval of information; unlike traditional search engines, SWSE operates over RDF Web data - loosely also known as Linked Data - which implies unique challenges for the system design, architecture, algorithms, implementation and user interface. In particular, many challenges exist in adopting Semantic Web technologies for Web data: the unique challenges of the Web - in terms of scale, unreliability, inconsistency and noise - are largely overlooked by the current Semantic Web standards. Herein, we describe the current SWSE system, initially detailing the architecture and later elaborating upon the function, design, implementation and performance of each individual component. In so doing, we also give an insight into how current Semantic Web standards can be tailored, in a best-effort manner, for use on Web data. Throughout, we offer evaluation and complementary argumentation to support our design choices, and also offer discussion on future directions and open research questions. Later, we also provide candid discussion relating to the difficulties currently faced in bringing such a search engine into the mainstream, and lessons learnt from roughly six years working on the Semantic Web Search Engine project.

0.021993173 = product of:
  0.043986347 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3854,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3854, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3854)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 3854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=3854,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 3854, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Web search engines, such as Google and Bing, are constantly employing results from knowledge organization and various visualization features to improve their search services. Knowledge graph, a large repository of structured knowledge represented by formal languages such as RDF (Resource Description Framework), is used to support entity search feature of Google and Bing (Demartini, 2016). When a user searchs for an entity, such as a person, an organization, or a place in Google or Bing, it is likely that a knowledge cardwill be presented on the right side bar of the search engine result pages (SERPs). For example, when a user searches the entity Benedict Cumberbatch on Google, the knowledge card will show the basic structured information about this person, including his date of birth, height, spouse, parents, and his movies, etc. The knowledge card, which is used to present the result of entity search, is generated from knowledge graphs. Therefore, the quality of knowledge graphs is essential to the performance of entity search. However, studies on the quality of knowledge graphs from the angle of entity coverage are scant in the literature. This study aims to investigate the coverage of entities of knowledge graphs behind Google and Bing.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.021761026 = product of:
  0.043522052 = sum of:
    0.02303018 = weight(_text_:information in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02303018 = score(doc=108,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The explosion of the information available on the Internet has made traditional information retrieval systems, characterized by one size fits all approaches, less effective. Indeed, users are overwhelmed by the information delivered by such systems in response to their queries, particularly when the latter are ambiguous. In order to tackle this problem, the state-of-the-art reveals that there is a growing interest towards contextual information retrieval (CIR) which relies on various sources of evidence issued from the user's search background and environment, in order to improve the retrieval accuracy. This chapter focuses on mobile context, highlights challenges they present for IR, and gives an overview of CIR approaches applied in this environment. Then, the authors present an approach to personalize search results for mobile users by exploiting both cognitive and spatio-temporal contexts. The experimental evaluation undertaken in front of Yahoo search shows that the approach improves the quality of top search result lists and enhances search result precision.

Date

20. 4.2012 13:19:22

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.01905007 = product of:
  0.03810014 = sum of:
    0.02102358 = weight(_text_:information in 109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02102358 = score(doc=109,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 109, 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=109)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 109, 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=109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This chapter shows that the wider use of Web search engines, reconsidering the theoretical and methodological frameworks to grasp new information practices. Beginning with an overview of the recent challenges implied by the dynamic nature of the Web, this chapter then traces the information behavior related concepts in order to present the different approaches from the user perspective. The authors pay special attention to the concept of "information practice" and other related concepts such as "use", "activity", and "behavior" largely used in the literature but not always strictly defined. The authors provide an overview of user-oriented studies that are meaningful to understand the different contexts of use of electronic information access systems, focusing on five approaches: the system-oriented approaches, the theories of information seeking, the cognitive and psychological approaches, the management science approaches, and the marketing approaches. Future directions of work are then shaped, including social searching and the ethical, cultural, and political dimensions of Web search engines. The authors conclude considering the importance of Critical theory to better understand the role of Web Search engines in our modern society.

Date

20. 4.2012 13:22:37

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.017903835 = product of:
  0.03580767 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=95,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 95, 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=95)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 95) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=95,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 95, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=95)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this chapter, the authors describe the key indexing components of today's web search engines. As the World Wide Web has grown, the systems and methods for indexing have changed significantly. The authors present the data structures used, the features extracted, the infrastructure needed, and the options available for designing a brand new search engine. Techniques are highlighted that improve relevance of results, discuss trade-offs to best utilize machine resources, and cover distributed processing concepts in this context. In particular, the authors delve into the topics of indexing phrases instead of terms, storage in memory vs. on disk, and data partitioning. Some thoughts on information organization for the newly emerging data-forms conclude the chapter.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.017121121 = product of:
  0.034242243 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=1177,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1177, 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=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Search engine users typically engage in multiquery sessions in their quest to fulfill their information needs. Despite a plethora of research findings suggesting that a significant group of users look for information within a specific geographical scope, existing reformulation studies lack a focused analysis of how users reformulate geographic queries. This study comprehensively investigates the ways in which users reformulate such needs in an attempt to fill this gap in the literature. Reformulated sessions were sampled from a query log of a major search engine to extract 2,400 entries that were manually inspected to filter geo sessions. This filter identified 471 search sessions that included geographical intent, and these sessions were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The results revealed that one in five of the users who reformulated their queries were looking for geographically related information. They reformulated their queries by changing the content of the query rather than the structure. Users were not following a unified sequence of modifications and instead performed a single reformulation action. However, in some cases it was possible to anticipate their next move. A number of tasks in geo modifications were identified, including standard, multi-needs, multi-places, and hybrid approaches. The research concludes that it is important to specialize query reformulation studies to focus on particular query types rather than generically analyzing them, as it is apparent that geographic queries have their special reformulation characteristics.

Date

26. 1.2014 18:48:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.13-24

0.01597124 = product of:
  0.03194248 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=5493,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5493, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5493)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 5493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=5493,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5493, 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=5493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Web search is more and more moving into mobile contexts. However, screen size of mobile devices is limited and search engine result pages face a trade-off between offering informative snippets and optimal use of space. One factor clearly influencing this trade-off is snippet length. The purpose of this paper is to find out what snippet size to use in mobile web search. Design/methodology/approach For this purpose, an eye-tracking experiment was conducted showing participants search interfaces with snippets of one, three or five lines on a mobile device to analyze 17 dependent variables. In total, 31 participants took part in the study. Each of the participants solved informational and navigational tasks. Findings Results indicate a strong influence of page fold on scrolling behavior and attention distribution across search results. Regardless of query type, short snippets seem to provide too little information about the result, so that search performance and subjective measures are negatively affected. Long snippets of five lines lead to better performance than medium snippets for navigational queries, but to worse performance for informational queries. Originality/value Although space in mobile search is limited, this study shows that longer snippets improve usability and user experience. It further emphasizes that page fold plays a stronger role in mobile than in desktop search for attention distribution.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Beitag in einem Special Issue: Information Science in the German-speaking Countries

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.3, S.325-343

0.01547626 = product of:
  0.03095252 = sum of:
    0.01899893 = weight(_text_:information in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01899893 = score(doc=2752,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21466857 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
    0.011953591 = product of:
      0.023907183 = sum of:
        0.023907183 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023907183 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = 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)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The doctoral thesis of Tatiana Gossen formulates criteria and guidelines on how to design the user interfaces of search engines for children. In her work, the author identifies the conceptual challenges based on own and previous user studies and addresses the changing characteristics of the users by providing a means of adaptation. Additionally, a novel type of search result visualisation for children with cartoon style characters is developed taking children's preference for visual information into account.

Content

Inhalt: Acknowledgments; Abstract; Zusammenfassung; Contents; List of Figures; List of Tables; List of Acronyms; Chapter 1 Introduction ; 1.1 Research Questions; 1.2 Thesis Outline; Part I Fundamentals ; Chapter 2 Information Retrieval for Young Users ; 2.1 Basics of Information Retrieval; 2.1.1 Architecture of an IR System; 2.1.2 Relevance Ranking; 2.1.3 Search User Interfaces; 2.1.4 Targeted Search Engines; 2.2 Aspects of Child Development Relevant for Information Retrieval Tasks; 2.2.1 Human Cognitive Development; 2.2.2 Information Processing Theory; 2.2.3 Psychosocial Development 2.3 User Studies and Evaluation2.3.1 Methods in User Studies; 2.3.2 Types of Evaluation; 2.3.3 Evaluation with Children; 2.4 Discussion; Chapter 3 State of the Art ; 3.1 Children's Information-Seeking Behaviour; 3.1.1 Querying Behaviour; 3.1.2 Search Strategy; 3.1.3 Navigation Style; 3.1.4 User Interface; 3.1.5 Relevance Judgement; 3.2 Existing Algorithms and User Interface Concepts for Children; 3.2.1 Query; 3.2.2 Content; 3.2.3 Ranking; 3.2.4 Search Result Visualisation; 3.3 Existing Information Retrieval Systems for Children; 3.3.1 Digital Book Libraries; 3.3.2 Web Search Engines 3.4 Summary and DiscussionPart II Studying Open Issues ; Chapter 4 Usability of Existing Search Engines for Young Users ; 4.1 Assessment Criteria; 4.1.1 Criteria for Matching the Motor Skills; 4.1.2 Criteria for Matching the Cognitive Skills; 4.2 Results; 4.2.1 Conformance with Motor Skills; 4.2.2 Conformance with the Cognitive Skills; 4.2.3 Presentation of Search Results; 4.2.4 Browsing versus Searching; 4.2.5 Navigational Style; 4.3 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 5 Large-scale Analysis of Children's Queries and Search Interactions; 5.1 Dataset; 5.2 Results; 5.3 Summary and Discussion Chapter 6 Differences in Usability and Perception of Targeted Web Search Engines between Children and Adults 6.1 Related Work; 6.2 User Study; 6.3 Study Results; 6.4 Summary and Discussion; Part III Tackling the Challenges ; Chapter 7 Search User Interface Design for Children ; 7.1 Conceptual Challenges and Possible Solutions; 7.2 Knowledge Journey Design; 7.3 Evaluation; 7.3.1 Study Design; 7.3.2 Study Results; 7.4 Voice-Controlled Search: Initial Study; 7.4.1 User Study; 7.5 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 8 Addressing User Diversity ; 8.1 Evolving Search User Interface 8.1.1 Mapping Function8.1.2 Evolving Skills; 8.1.3 Detection of User Abilities; 8.1.4 Design Concepts; 8.2 Adaptation of a Search User Interface towards User Needs; 8.2.1 Design & Implementation; 8.2.2 Search Input; 8.2.3 Result Output; 8.2.4 General Properties; 8.2.5 Configuration and Further Details; 8.3 Evaluation; 8.3.1 Study Design; 8.3.2 Study Results; 8.3.3 Preferred UI Settings; 8.3.4 User satisfaction; 8.4 Knowledge Journey Exhibit; 8.4.1 Hardware; 8.4.2 Frontend; 8.4.3 Backend; 8.5 Summary and Discussion; Chapter 9 Supporting Visual Searchers in Processing Search Results 9.1 Related Work

Date

1. 2.2016 18:25:22

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval

Subject

Information storage and retrieval

0.015395639 = product of:
  0.030791279 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 93, 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=93)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 93, 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=93)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

17. 4.2012 14:25:22

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.015395639 = product of:
  0.030791279 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 105, 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=105)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 105, 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=105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

17. 4.2012 15:22:11

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.015395639 = product of:
  0.030791279 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3246, 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=3246)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 3246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=3246,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3246, 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=3246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 68(2016) no.5, S.566-588

0.014607265 = product of:
  0.02921453 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper aims to review the fiercely discussed question of whether the ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines is justified by the quality of the articles. After an overview of current research on information quality in Wikipedia, a summary of the extended discussion on the quality of encyclopedic entries in general is given. On this basis, a heuristic method for evaluating Wikipedia entries is developed and applied to Wikipedia articles that scored highly in a search engine retrieval effectiveness test and compared with the relevance judgment of jurors. In all search engines tested, Wikipedia results are unanimously judged better by the jurors than other results on the corresponding results position. Relevance judgments often roughly correspond with the results from the heuristic evaluation. Cases in which high relevance judgments are not in accordance with the comparatively low score from the heuristic evaluation are interpreted as an indicator of a high degree of trust in Wikipedia. One of the systemic shortcomings of Wikipedia lies in its necessarily incoherent user model. A further tuning of the suggested criteria catalog, for instance, the different weighing of the supplied criteria, could serve as a starting point for a user model differentiated evaluation of Wikipedia articles. Approved methods of quality evaluation of reference works are applied to Wikipedia articles and integrated with the question of search engine evaluation.

Date

30. 9.2012 19:27:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.117-132

0.014607265 = product of:
  0.02921453 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=1605,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1605, 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=1605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Numerous studies have explored the possibility of uncovering information from web search queries but few have examined the factors that affect web query data sources. We conducted a study that investigated this issue by comparing Google Trends and Baidu Index. Data from these two services are based on queries entered by users into Google and Baidu, two of the largest search engines in the world. We first compared the features and functions of the two services based on documents and extensive testing. We then carried out an empirical study that collected query volume data from the two sources. We found that data from both sources could be used to predict the quality of Chinese universities and companies. Despite the differences between the two services in terms of technology, such as differing methods of language processing, the search volume data from the two were highly correlated and combining the two data sources did not improve the predictive power of the data. However, there was a major difference between the two in terms of data availability. Baidu Index was able to provide more search volume data than Google Trends did. Our analysis showed that the disadvantage of Google Trends in this regard was due to Google's smaller user base in China. The implication of this finding goes beyond China. Google's user bases in many countries are smaller than that in China, so the search volume data related to those countries could result in the same issue as that related to China.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.13-22

0.014607265 = product of:
  0.02921453 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=5288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5288, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5288)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Information Science in the German-speaking Countries

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.3, S.310-324

0.013142297 = product of:
  0.026284594 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=2100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper modeled user-centered attributes with which First and Second-order Measurement Models (FSoMM) were proposed using factor analysis in a quantitative evaluative procedure. There was need to relate users needs as requirements for Web Search Engines (WeSEs) in a dynamic context. This informed the motivation for formulating the FSoMM to possess baseline properties with reasonable validity and reliability. This was achieved by considering how users "seek out and use" information as useful characteristics that can suffice as users' attributes. This is because of the belief in this paper that factors modelled from users' attributes encapsulate users' needs. With the qualitative evaluative approach these factors were translated into users' requirements for WeSEs' development. Results obtained showed that both models demonstrated reasonable model fit. Therefore, users' requirements can be communicated with measurement models. As illustrated in this paper, both the qualitative and quantitative evaluative approach remain an invaluable resource in this respect. We therefore infer that WeSEs' success in the delivery of assistance to users, particularly in a dynamic context must be based, not only on the progress of technology, but also on users' requirements.

Source

Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.1, S.25-39

0.0128297005 = product of:
  0.025659401 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1627)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=1627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1627, 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=1627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.663-686

0.010621051 = product of:
  0.042484205 = sum of:
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=4160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Dimensions of knowledge: facets for knowledge organization. Eds.: R.P. Smiraglia, u. H.-L. Lee

0.010513837 = product of:
  0.021027675 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 2563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=2563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2563)
    0.014161401 = product of:
      0.028322803 = sum of:
        0.028322803 = weight(_text_:organization in 2563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028322803 = score(doc=2563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15756798 = fieldWeight in 2563, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

To what extent can changes in PageRank's damping factor affect node ranking? We prove that, at least on some graphs, the top k nodes assume all possible k! orderings as the damping factor varies, even if it varies within an arbitrarily small interval (e.g. [0.84999,0.85001][0.84999,0.85001]). Thus, the rank of a node for a given (finite set of discrete) damping factor(s) provides very little information about the rank of that node as the damping factor varies over a continuous interval. We bypass this problem introducing lineage analysis and proving that there is a simple condition, with a "natural" interpretation independent of PageRank, that allows one to verify "in one shot" if a node outperforms another simultaneously for all damping factors and all damping variables (informally, time variant damping factors). The novel notions of strong rank and weak rank of a node provide a measure of the fuzziness of the rank of that node, of the objective orderability of a graph's nodes, and of the quality of results returned by different ranking algorithms based on the random surfer model. We deploy our analytical tools on a 41M node snapshot of the .it Web domain and on a 0.7M node snapshot of the CiteSeer citation graph. Among other findings, we show that rank is indeed relatively stable in both graphs; that "classic" PageRank (d=0.85) marginally outperforms Weighted In-degree (d->0), mainly due to its ability to ferret out "niche" items; and that, for both the Web and CiteSeer, the ideal damping factor appears to be 0.8-0.9 to obtain those items of high importance to at least one (model of randomly surfing) user, but only 0.5-0.6 to obtain those items important to every (model of randomly surfing) user.

Content

This paper addresses the fundamental question of how the ranking induced by PageRank can be affected by variations of the damping factor. This introduction briefly reviews the PageRank algorithm (Section 1.1) and the crucial difference between score and rank (Section 1.2) before presenting an overview of our results and the organization of the rest of the paper (Section 1.3). Vgl. auch: doi:10.1016/j.jda.2009.11.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570866709000926.

0.008539819 = product of:
  0.034159277 = sum of:
    0.034159277 = weight(_text_:information in 2605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034159277 = score(doc=2605,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.38596505 = fieldWeight in 2605, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2605)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For introductory information retrieval courses at the undergraduate and graduate level in computer science, information science and computer engineering departments. Written by a leader in the field of information retrieval, Search Engines: Information Retrieval in Practice, is designed to give undergraduate students the understanding and tools they need to evaluate, compare and modify search engines. Coverage of the underlying IR and mathematical models reinforce key concepts. The book's numerous programming exercises make extensive use of Galago, a Java-based open source search engine. SUPPLEMENTS / Extensive lecture slides (in PDF and PPT format) / Solutions to selected end of chapter problems (Instructors only) / Test collections for exercises / Galago search engine

LCSH

Information retrieval
Information Storage and Retrieval

RSWK

Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval

Subject

Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
Information retrieval
Information Storage and Retrieval

0.007724557 = product of:
  0.030898228 = sum of:
    0.030898228 = weight(_text_:information in 94) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030898228 = score(doc=94,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 94, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=94)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Amid the rapid growth of information today is the increasing challenge for people to navigate its magnitude. Dynamics and heterogeneity of large information spaces such as the Web raise important questions about information retrieval in these environments. Collection of all information in advance and centralization of IR operations are extremely difficult, if not impossible, because systems are dynamic and information is distributed. The chapter discusses some of the key issues facing classic information retrieval models and presents a decentralized, organic view of information systems pertaining to search in large scale networks. It focuses on the impact of network structure on search performance and discusses a phenomenon we refer to as the Clustering Paradox, in which the topology of interconnected systems imposes a scalability limit.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a