Search (199 results, page 2 of 10)

0.027245669 = product of:
  0.054491337 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.047428668 = product of:
      0.094857335 = sum of:
        0.094857335 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094857335 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Search engine retrieval effectiveness studies are usually small scale, using only limited query samples. Furthermore, queries are selected by the researchers. We address these issues by taking a random representative sample of 1,000 informational and 1,000 navigational queries from a major German search engine and comparing Google's and Bing's results based on this sample. Jurors were found through crowdsourcing, and data were collected using specialized software, the Relevance Assessment Tool (RAT). We found that although Google outperforms Bing in both query types, the difference in the performance for informational queries was rather low. However, for navigational queries, Google found the correct answer in 95.3% of cases, whereas Bing only found the correct answer 76.6% of the time. We conclude that search engine performance on navigational queries is of great importance, because users in this case can clearly identify queries that have returned correct results. So, performance on this query type may contribute to explaining user satisfaction with search engines.

0.0269785 = product of:
  0.107914 = sum of:
    0.107914 = weight(_text_:frequency in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107914 = score(doc=5061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.39037234 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which others cite a specific article, as it has a "cited by" feature. This study begins with an overview of how to use Google Scholar for citation analysis and identifies advanced search techniques not well documented by Google Scholar. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of "Webometrics." It makes several suggestions for improving Google Scholar. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.

0.026661905 = product of:
  0.05332381 = sum of:
    0.008155267 = product of:
      0.032621067 = sum of:
        0.032621067 = weight(_text_:based in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032621067 = score(doc=1196,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2306343 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.04516854 = weight(_text_:term in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04516854 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.20621133 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article describes the journey from the conception of and vision for a modern search-engine-based search environment to its technological realisation. In doing so, it takes up the thread of an earlier article on this subject, this time from a technical viewpoint. As well as presenting the conceptual considerations of the initial stages, this article will principally elucidate the technological aspects of this journey. The starting point for the deliberations about development of an academic search engine was the experience we gained through the generally successful project "Digital Library NRW", in which from 1998 to 2000-with Bielefeld University Library in overall charge-we designed a system model for an Internet-based library portal with an improved academic search environment at its core. At the heart of this system was a metasearch with an availability function, to which we added a user interface integrating all relevant source material for study and research. The deficiencies of this approach were felt soon after the system was launched in June 2001. There were problems with the stability and performance of the database retrieval system, with the integration of full-text documents and Internet pages, and with acceptance by users, because users are increasingly performing the searches themselves using search engines rather than going to the library for help in doing searches. Since a long list of problems are also encountered using commercial search engines for academic use (in particular the retrieval of academic information and long-term availability), the idea was born for a search engine configured specifically for academic use. We also hoped that with one single access point founded on improved search engine technology, we could access the heterogeneous academic resources of subject-based bibliographic databases, catalogues, electronic newspapers, document servers and academic web pages.

0.023954237 = product of:
  0.09581695 = sum of:
    0.09581695 = weight(_text_:term in 3072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09581695 = score(doc=3072,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.4374403 = fieldWeight in 3072, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3072)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present an analysis of the Yahoo Buzz Index over a period of 45 weeks. Our key findings are that: (1) It is most common for a search term to show up on the index for one week, followed by two weeks, three weeks, etc. Only two terms persist for all 45 weeks studied - Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez. Search term longevity follows a power-law distribution or a winner-take-all structure; (2) Most search terms focus on entertainment. Search terms related to serious topics are found less often. The Buzz Index does not necessarily follow the "news cycle"; and, (3) We provide two ways to determine "star power" of various search terms - one that emphasizes staying power on the Index and another that emphasizes rank. In general, the methods lead to dramatically different results. Britney Spears performs well in both methods. We conclude that the data available on the Index is symptomatic of a celebrity-crazed, entertainment-centered culture.

0.019761236 = product of:
  0.079044946 = sum of:
    0.079044946 = weight(_text_:term in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079044946 = score(doc=5186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.36086982 = fieldWeight in 5186, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5186)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Jansen and Pooch review three major search engine studies and compare them to three traditional search system studies and three OPAC search studies, to determine if user search characteristics differ. The web search engine studies indicate that most searchers use two, two search term queries per session, no boolean operators, and look only at the top ten items returned, while reporting the location of relevant information. In traditional search systems we find seven to 16 queries of six to nine terms, while about ten documents per session were viewed. The OPAC studies indicated two to five queries per session of two or less terms, with Boolean search about 1% and less than 50 documents viewed.

0.019558553 = product of:
  0.07823421 = sum of:
    0.07823421 = weight(_text_:term in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07823421 = score(doc=7,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.35716853 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: Introduction Document File Preparation - Manual Indexing - Information Extraction - Vector Space Modeling - Matrix Decompositions - Query Representations - Ranking and Relevance Feedback - Searching by Link Structure - User Interface - Book Format Document File Preparation Document Purification and Analysis - Text Formatting - Validation - Manual Indexing - Automatic Indexing - Item Normalization - Inverted File Structures - Document File - Dictionary List - Inversion List - Other File Structures Vector Space Models Construction - Term-by-Document Matrices - Simple Query Matching - Design Issues - Term Weighting - Sparse Matrix Storage - Low-Rank Approximations Matrix Decompositions QR Factorization - Singular Value Decomposition - Low-Rank Approximations - Query Matching - Software - Semidiscrete Decomposition - Updating Techniques Query Management Query Binding - Types of Queries - Boolean Queries - Natural Language Queries - Thesaurus Queries - Fuzzy Queries - Term Searches - Probabilistic Queries Ranking and Relevance Feedback Performance Evaluation - Precision - Recall - Average Precision - Genetic Algorithms - Relevance Feedback Searching by Link Structure HITS Method - HITS Implementation - HITS Summary - PageRank Method - PageRank Adjustments - PageRank Implementation - PageRank Summary User Interface Considerations General Guidelines - Search Engine Interfaces - Form Fill-in - Display Considerations - Progress Indication - No Penalties for Error - Results - Test and Retest - Final Considerations Further Reading

0.017985666 = product of:
  0.071942665 = sum of:
    0.071942665 = weight(_text_:frequency in 6980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071942665 = score(doc=6980,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.2602482 = fieldWeight in 6980, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6980)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In previous articles, we reported the state of Web searching in 1997 (Jansen, Spink, & Saracevic, 2000) and in 1999 (Spink, Wolfram, Jansen, & Saracevic, 2001). Such snapshot studies and statistics on Web use appear regularly (OCLC, 1999), but provide little information about Web searching trends. In this article, we compare and contrast results from our two previous studies of Excite queries' data sets, each containing over 1 million queries submitted by over 200,000 Excite users collected on 16 September 1997 and 20 December 1999. We examine how public Web searching changing during that 2-year time period. As Table 1 shows, the overall structure of Web queries in some areas did not change, while in others we see change from 1997 to 1999. Our comparison shows how Web searching changed incrementally and also dramatically. We see some moves toward greater simplicity, including shorter queries (i.e., fewer terms) and shorter sessions (i.e., fewer queries per user), with little modification (addition or deletion) of terms in subsequent queries. The trend toward shorter queries suggests that Web information content should target specific terms in order to reach Web users. Another trend was to view fewer pages of results per query. Most Excite users examined only one page of results per query, since an Excite results page contains ten ranked Web sites. Were users satisfied with the results and did not need to view more pages? It appears that the public continues to have a low tolerance of wading through retrieved sites. This decline in interactivity levels is a disturbing finding for the future of Web searching. Queries that included Boolean operators were in the minority, but the percentage increased between the two time periods. Most Boolean use involved the AND operator with many mistakes. The use of relevance feedback almost doubled from 1997 to 1999, but overall use was still small. An unusually large number of terms were used with low frequency, such as personal names, spelling errors, non-English words, and Web-specific terms, such as URLs. Web query vocabulary contains more words than found in large English texts in general. The public language of Web queries has its own and unique characteristics. How did Web searching topics change from 1997 to 1999? We classified a random sample of 2,414 queries from 1997 and 2,539 queries from 1999 into 11 categories (Table 2). From 1997 to 1999, Web searching shifted from entertainment, recreation and sex, and pornography, preferences to e-commerce-related topics under commerce, travel, employment, and economy. This shift coincided with changes in information distribution on the publicly indexed Web.

0.017428853 = product of:
  0.034857705 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=628)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.025440816 = product of:
      0.05088163 = sum of:
        0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088163 = score(doc=628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:36:13

0.017428853 = product of:
  0.034857705 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.025440816 = product of:
      0.05088163 = sum of:
        0.05088163 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088163 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.016956761 = product of:
  0.033913523 = sum of:
    0.011652809 = product of:
      0.046611235 = sum of:
        0.046611235 = weight(_text_:based in 3559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046611235 = score(doc=3559,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 3559, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3559)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 3559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=3559,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3559, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3559)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Describes the concept of a proxy based information classification and filtering utility, named Web Assistant. On the behalf of users a private view of the WWW is generated based on a previously determined profile. This profile is created by monitoring the user anf group activities when browsing WWW pages. Additional features are integrated to allow for easy interoperability workgroups with similar project interests, maintain personal and common hotlists with automatic modification checks and a sophisticated search engine front-end

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.016956761 = product of:
  0.033913523 = sum of:
    0.011652809 = product of:
      0.046611235 = sum of:
        0.046611235 = weight(_text_:based in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046611235 = score(doc=631,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

'Quality-controlled subject gateways' are Internet services which apply a rich set of quality measures to support systematic resource discovery. Considerable manual effort is used to secure a selection of resources which meet quality criteria and to display a rich description of these resources with standards-based metadata. Regular checking and updating ensure good collection management. A main goal is to provide a high quality of subject access through indexing resources using controlled vocabularies and by offering a deep classification structure for advanced searching and browsing. This article provides an initial empirical overview of existing services of this kind, their approaches and technologies, based on proposed working definitions and typologies of subject gateways

Date

22. 6.2002 19:37:55

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 5230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=5230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 5230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5230)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to evaluate the effectiveness of using the HTML META tag to improve retrieval of World Wide Web documents through Internet search engines. 20 documents were created in 5 subject areas: agricultural trade; farm business statistics; poultry statistics; vegetable statistics; and cotton statistics. 4 pages were created in each subject area: one with no META tags, one with a META tag using the keywords attribute, one with a META tag using the description attribute, and one with META tags using both the keywords and description attributes. Searches were performed in Alta Vista and Infoseek to find terms common to all pages as well as for each keyword term contained in the META tag. Analysis of the searches suggests that use of the keywords attribute in a META tag substantially improves accessibility while use of the description attribute alone does not. Concludes that HTML document authors should consider using keywords attribute META tags and suggests that more search engines index the META tag to improve resource discovery

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The work we are presenting is devoted to the information collected on the WWW. By the term collected we mean the whole process of retrieving, extracting and presenting results to the user. This research is part of the RAP (Research, Analyze, Propose) project in which we propose to combine two methods: (i) query reformulation using linguistic markers according to a given point of view; and (ii) text semantic analysis by means of contextual exploration results (Descles, 1991). The general project architecture describing the interactions between the users, the RAP system and the WWW search engines is presented in Nait-Baha et al. (1998). We will focus this paper on showing how we use linguistic markers to reformulate the queries according to a given point of view

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Traditional on-line search services such as Dialog, DataStar and Lexis provide a wide range of search features (boolean and proximity operators, truncation, etc). This paper discusses the use of these features for effective searching, and argues that these features are required, regardless of advances in search engine technology. The literature on on-line searching is reviewed, identifying features that searchers find desirable for effective searching. A selective survey of current digital libraries available on the Web was undertaken, identifying which search features are present. The survey indicates that current digital libraries do not implement a wide range of search features. For instance: under half of the examples included controlled vocabulary, under half had proximity searching, only one enabled browsing of term indexes, and none of the digital libraries enable searchers to refine an initial search. Suggestions are made for enhancing the search effectiveness of digital libraries; for instance, by providing a full range of search operators, enabling browsing of search terms, enhancement of records with controlled vocabulary, enabling the refining of initial searches, etc.

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 378, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=378)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article, we propose new word sense disambiguation strategies for resolving the senses of polysemous query terms issued to Web search engines, and we explore the application of those strategies when used in a query expansion framework. The novelty of our approach lies in the exploitation of the Web page PageRank values as indicators of the significance the different senses of a term carry when employed in search queries. We also aim at scalable query sense resolution techniques that can be applied without loss of efficiency to large data sets such as those on the Web. Our experimental findings validate that the proposed techniques perform more accurately than do the traditional disambiguation strategies and improve the quality of the search results, when involved in query expansion.

0.016938202 = product of:
  0.06775281 = sum of:
    0.06775281 = weight(_text_:term in 5363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06775281 = score(doc=5363,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.309317 = fieldWeight in 5363, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5363)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study applies Kuhlthau's Information Search Process stage (ISP) model to understand bilingual users' Internet search experience. We conduct a quasi-field experiment with 30 bilingual searchers and the results suggested that the ISP model was applicable in studying searchers' information retrieval behavior in search tasks. The ISP model was applicable in studying searchers' information retrieval behavior in simple tasks. However, searchers' emotional responses differed from those of the ISP model for a complex task. By testing searchers using different search strategies, the results suggested that search engines with multilanguage search functions provide an advantage for bilingual searchers in the Internet's multilingual environment. The findings showed that when searchers used a search engine as a tool for problem solving, they might experience different feelings in each ISP stage than in searching for information for a term paper using a library. The results echo other research findings that indicate that information seeking is a multifaceted phenomenon.

0.015809556 = product of:
  0.063238226 = sum of:
    0.063238226 = product of:
      0.12647645 = sum of:
        0.12647645 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12647645 = score(doc=5816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 5816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.015250247 = product of:
  0.030500494 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Information subject gateways provide targeted discovery services for their users, giving access to Web resources selected according to quality and subject coverage criteria. Information gateways recognise that they must collaborate on a wide range of issues relating to content to ensure continued success. This report is informed by discussion of content activities at the 1999 Imesh Workshop. The author considers the implications for subject based gateways of co-operation regarding coverage policy, creation of metadata, and provision of searching and browsing across services. Other possibilities for co-operation include working more closely with information providers, and diclosure of information in joint metadata registries

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54

0.015250247 = product of:
  0.030500494 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 4874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=4874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 4874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4874)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 4874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=4874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

NOVAGate is a subject-based information gateway covering electronic resources in the agricultural, veterinary and related fields. The service, which opened in July 1998, is produced by the veterinary and agricultural libraries of the 5 Nordic countries - Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden - which serve the NOVA University. The gateway covers Nordic and European resources as well as the resources of international organizations, but being planned is a network of subject gateways which will give access to a wide range of international quality resources within the agricultural, veterinary and related fields. The service uses the ROADS software

Date

22. 6.2002 19:41:00

0.015250247 = product of:
  0.030500494 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Wolverhampton Web Library (WWLib) is a WWW search engine that provides access to UK based information. The experimental version developed in 1995, was a success but highlighted the need for a much higher degree of automation. An interesting feature of the experimental WWLib was that it organised information according to DDC. Discusses the advantages of classification and describes the automatic classifier that is being developed in Java as part of the new, fully automated WWLib

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06