Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Benutzerstudien"
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Binder, G.; Stahl, M.; Faulborn, L.: Vergleichsuntersuchung MESSENGER-FULCRUM (2000) 0.03
    0.02904519 = product of:
      0.043567784 = sum of:
        0.031532075 = weight(_text_:im in 4885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031532075 = score(doc=4885,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2186231 = fieldWeight in 4885, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4885)
        0.012035711 = product of:
          0.03610713 = sum of:
            0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03610713 = score(doc=4885,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4885, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4885)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    In einem Benutzertest, der im Rahmen der Projektes GIRT stattfand, wurde die Leistungsfähigkeit zweier Retrievalsprachen für die Datenbankrecherche überprüft. Die Ergebnisse werden in diesem Bericht dargestellt: Das System FULCRUM beruht auf automatischer Indexierung und liefert ein nach statistischer Relevanz sortiertes Suchergebnis. Die Standardfreitextsuche des Systems MESSENGER wurde um die intellektuell vom IZ vergebenen Deskriptoren ergänzt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass in FULCRUM das Boole'sche Exakt-Match-Retrieval dem Verktos-Space-Modell (Best-Match-Verfahren) von den Versuchspersonen vorgezogen wurde. Die in MESSENGER realisierte Mischform aus intellektueller und automatischer Indexierung erwies sich gegenüber dem quantitativ-statistischen Ansatz beim Recall als überlegen
  2. Robins, D.: Shifts of focus on various aspects of user information problems during interactive information retrieval (2000) 0.00
    0.0048631616 = product of:
      0.014589485 = sum of:
        0.014589485 = product of:
          0.043768454 = sum of:
            0.043768454 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043768454 = score(doc=4995,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4995, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4995)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The author presents the results of additional analyses of shifts of focus in IR interaction. Results indicate that users and search intermediaries work toward search goals in nonlinear fashion. Twenty interactions between 20 different users and one of four different search intermediaries were examined. Analysis of discourse between the two parties during interactive information retrieval (IR) shows changes in topic occurs, on average, every seven utterances. These twenty interactions included some 9,858 utterances and 1,439 foci. Utterances are defined as any uninterrupted sound, statement, gesture, etc., made by a participant in the discourse dyad. These utterances are segmented by the researcher according to their intentional focus, i.e., the topic on which the conversation between the user and search intermediary focus until the focus changes (i.e., shifts of focus). In all but two of the 20 interactions, the search intermediary initiated a majority of shifts of focus. Six focus categories were observed. These were foci dealing with: documents; evaluation of search results; search strategies; IR system; topic of the search; and information about the user
  3. Tombros, T.; Crestani, F.: Users' perception of relevance of spoken documents (2000) 0.00
    0.004011904 = product of:
      0.012035711 = sum of:
        0.012035711 = product of:
          0.03610713 = sum of:
            0.03610713 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03610713 = score(doc=4996,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4996, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4996)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    We present the results of a study of user's perception of relevance of documents. The aim is to study experimentally how users' perception varies depending on the form that retrieved documents are presented. Documents retrieved in response to a query are presented to users in a variety of ways, from full text to a machine spoken query-biased automatically-generated summary, and the difference in users' perception of relevance is studied. The experimental results suggest that the effectiveness of advanced multimedia Information Retrieval applications may be affected by the low level of users' perception of relevance of retrieved documents
  4. Park, S.: Usability, user preferences, effectiveness, and user behaviors when searching individual and integrated full-text databases : implications for digital libraries (2000) 0.00
    0.0028656456 = product of:
      0.008596936 = sum of:
        0.008596936 = product of:
          0.025790809 = sum of:
            0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025790809 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051022716 = queryNorm
                0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This article addresses a crucial issue in the digital library environment: how to support effective interaction of users with heterogeneous and distributed information resources. In particular, this study compared usability, user preference, effectiveness, and searching behaviors in systems that implement interaction with multiple databases as if they were one (integrated interaction) in a experiment in the TREC environment. 28 volunteers were recruited from the graduate students of the School of Communication, Information & Library Studies at Rutgers University. Significantly more subjects preferred the common interface to the integrated interface, mainly because they could have more control over database selection. Subjects were also more satisfied with the results from the common interface, and performed better with the common interface than with the integrated interface. Overall, it appears that for this population, interacting with databases through a common interface is preferable on all grounds to interacting with databases through an integrated interface. These results suggest that: (1) the general assumption of the information retrieval (IR) literature that an integrated interaction is best needs to be revisited; (2) it is important to allow for more user control in the distributed environment; (3) for digital library purposes, it is important to characterize different databases to support user choice for integration; and (4) certain users prefer control over database selection while still opting for results to be merged

Languages

Types