Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.050242677 = product of:
  0.15072803 = sum of:
    0.13706446 = weight(_text_:ranking in 775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13706446 = score(doc=775,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.67612857 = fieldWeight in 775, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=775)
    0.013663581 = product of:
      0.04099074 = sum of:
        0.04099074 = weight(_text_:29 in 775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04099074 = score(doc=775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=775)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Das Relevanz-Ranking im Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg HEIDI, bereits 2009 in einem Beitrag in dieser Zeitschrift beschrieben, wurde in den letzten Jahren durch neue Entwicklungen und Methoden stark verbessert. Der Aufsatz beschreibt die Realisierung der bisherigen Rankingmaßnahmen unter der neu eingesetzten Suchmaschinenplattform SOLR. Weiter werden verschiedene neue Möglichkeiten für Rankinganpassungen unter SOLR sowie deren Einsatz im HEIDI-Katalog dargestellt.

Date

29. 6.2013 18:06:23

0.0316047 = product of:
  0.1896282 = sum of:
    0.1896282 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1896282 = score(doc=2188,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.9354215 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Bekanntlich führen Suchmaschinen wie Google &Co. beider Auflistung der Suchergebnisse ein "Ranking" nach "Relevanz" durch, d.h. die Dokumente werden in absteigender Reihenfolge entsprechend ihrer Erfüllung von Relevanzkriterien ausgeben. In Online-Katalogen (OPACs) ist derlei noch nicht allgemein übliche Praxis, doch bietet etwa das im Österreichischen Bibliothekenverbund eingesetzte System Aleph 500 tatsächlich eine solche Ranking-Option an (die im Verbundkatalog auch implementiert ist). Bislang liegen allerdings kaum Informationen zur Funktionsweise dieses Features, insbesondere auch im Hinblick auf eine Hilfestellung für Benutzer, vor. Daher möchten wir mit diesem Beitrag versuchen, den in unserem Verbund bestehenden Informationsstand zum Thema "Relevance Ranking" zu erweitern. Sowohl die Verwendung einer Ranking-Option in OPACs generell als auch die sich unter Aleph 500 konkret bietenden Möglichkeiten sollen im folgenden näher betrachtet werden.

0.030242782 = product of:
  0.09072834 = sum of:
    0.084804304 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084804304 = score(doc=2509,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.005924042 = product of:
      0.017772125 = sum of:
        0.017772125 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017772125 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A relevancy-ranking algorithm for a natural language interface to Boolean online public access catalogs (OPACs) was formulated and compared with that currently used in a knowledge-based search interface called the E-Referencer, being developed by the authors. The algorithm makes use of seven weIl-known ranking criteria: breadth of match, section weighting, proximity of query words, variant word forms (stemming), document frequency, term frequency and document length. The algorithm converts a natural language query into a series of increasingly broader Boolean search statements. In a small experiment with ten subjects in which the algorithm was simulated by hand, the algorithm obtained good results with a mean overall precision of 0.42 and mean average precision of 0.62, representing a 27 percent improvement in precision and 41 percent improvement in average precision compared to the E-Referencer. The usefulness of each step in the algorithm was analyzed and suggestions are made for improving the algorithm.

Content

"Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."

Source

Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120

0.024480894 = product of:
  0.14688537 = sum of:
    0.14688537 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14688537 = score(doc=4968,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.7245744 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Discovery-Systeme bieten meist als Standardeinstellung eine Sortierung nach Relevanz an. Wie die Relevanz ermittelt wird, ist häufig intransparent. Dabei wären Kenntnisse darüber aus Nutzersicht ein wichtiger Faktor in der Informationskompetenz, während Bibliotheken sicherstellen sollten, dass das Ranking zum eigenen Bestand und Publikum passt. In diesem Aufsatz wird dargestellt, wie Discovery-Systeme Treffer auswählen und bewerten. Dazu gehören Indexierung, Prozessierung, Text-Matching und weitere Relevanzkriterien, z. B. Popularität oder Verfügbarkeit. Schließlich müssen alle betrachteten Kriterien zu einem zentralen Score zusammengefasst werden. Ein besonderer Fokus wird auf das Ranking von EBSCO Discovery Service, Primo und Summon gelegt.

0.0242298 = product of:
  0.1453788 = sum of:
    0.1453788 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1453788 = score(doc=4308,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.71714264 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Relevance Ranking in Online-Katalogen ist zwar kein neues Thema, doch liegt dazu nicht allzu viel Literatur vor, die das Prädikat "ernstzunehmen" verdient. Dies ist zum einen darin begründet, dass das Interesse an der Ausgabe ranggereihter Ergebnislisten auf Seiten aller Beteiligter (Bibliothekare, Softwarehersteller, Benutzer) traditionell gering war. Zum anderen ging die seit einigen Jahren populär gewordene Kritik an den bestehenden OPACs vielfach von einer unzureichenden Wissensbasis aus und produzierte oft nur polemische oder emotional gefärbte Beiträge, die zum Thema Ranking wenig beitrugen. ... Der hier beschriebene Test ist natürlich in keiner Weise erschöpfend oder repräsentativ. Dennoch gibt er, wie ich glaube, Anlass zu einiger Hoffnung. Er lässt vermuten, dass die "neuen" OPACs - zumindest was das Relevance Ranking betrifft - auf dem Weg in die richtige Richtung sind. Wie gut es wirklich gelingen wird, die Rankingleistung von Suchmaschinen wie Google, die unter völlig anderen Voraussetzungen arbeiten, einzuholen, wird aber erst die Zukunft zeigen.

0.004025671 = product of:
  0.024154026 = sum of:
    0.024154026 = product of:
      0.072462074 = sum of:
        0.072462074 = weight(_text_:29 in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072462074 = score(doc=5727,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5496386 = fieldWeight in 5727, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5727)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 1.1996 18:23:13

Source

Ciencia da informacao. 29(2000) no.3, S.5-13