Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.11 
    0.10765323 = product of:
  0.21530646 = sum of:
    0.059088502 = weight(_text_:von in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059088502 = score(doc=3276,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.4613872 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.15621796 = sum of:
      0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004935794 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04800207 = queryNorm
          0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.105756834 = weight(_text_:z in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.105756834 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2562021 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04800207 = queryNorm
          0.41278675 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
      0.045525327 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045525327 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04800207 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
    Type
    a
  2. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.06 
    0.06332272 = product of:
  0.12664545 = sum of:
    0.052850362 = weight(_text_:von in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052850362 = score(doc=5023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.41267726 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.07379509 = product of:
      0.11069263 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
        0.105756834 = weight(_text_:z in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105756834 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2562021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.41278675 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag beschreibt eine Studie zur Entwicklung und Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme. Dazu wurden mögliche Faktoren für das Relevanzranking ausgehend von den Verfahren in Websuchmaschinen identifiziert, auf den Bibliothekskontext übertragen und systematisch evaluiert. Mithilfe eines Testsystems, das auf dem ZBW-Informationsportal EconBiz und einer web-basierten Software zur Evaluierung von Suchsystemen aufsetzt, wurden verschiedene Relevanzfaktoren (z. B. Popularität in Verbindung mit Aktualität) getestet. Obwohl die getesteten Rankingverfahren auf einer theoretischen Ebene divers sind, konnten keine einheitlichen Verbesserungen gegenüber den Baseline-Rankings gemessen werden. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass eine Adaptierung des Rankings auf individuelle Nutzer bzw. Nutzungskontexte notwendig sein könnte, um eine höhere Performance zu erzielen.
    Type
    a
  3. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001) 0.03 
    0.028445775 = product of:
  0.05689155 = sum of:
    0.055481322 = weight(_text_:von in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055481322 = score(doc=5771,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.43322086 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
    0.001410227 = product of:
      0.004230681 = sum of:
        0.004230681 = weight(_text_:a in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004230681 = score(doc=5771,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In unserem Retrievaltest von Suchwerkzeugen im World Wide Web (Password 11/2000) schnitt die Suchmaschine Google am besten ab. Im Vergleich zu anderen Search Engines setzt Google kaum auf Informationslinguistik, sondern auf Algorithmen, die sich aus den Besonderheiten der Web-Dokumente ableiten lassen. Kernstück der informationsstatistischen Technik ist das "PageRank"- Verfahren (benannt nach dem Entwickler Larry Page), das aus der Hypertextstruktur des Web die "Popularität" von Seiten anhand ihrer ein- und ausgehenden Links berechnet. Google besticht durch das Angebot intuitiv verstehbarer Suchbildschirme sowie durch einige sehr nützliche "Kleinigkeiten" wie die Angabe des Rangs einer Seite, Highlighting, Suchen in der Seite, Suchen innerhalb eines Suchergebnisses usw., alles verstaut in einer eigenen Befehlsleiste innerhalb des Browsers. Ähnlich wie RealNames bietet Google mit dem Produkt "AdWords" den Aufkauf von Suchtermen an. Nach einer Reihe von nunmehr vier Password-Artikeln über InternetSuchwerkzeugen im Vergleich wollen wir abschließend zu einer Bewertung kommen. Wie ist der Stand der Technik bei Directories und Search Engines aus informationswissenschaftlicher Sicht einzuschätzen? Werden die "typischen" Internetnutzer, die ja in der Regel keine Information Professionals sind, adäquat bedient? Und können auch Informationsfachleute von den Suchwerkzeugen profitieren?
    Type
    a
  4. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.02 
    0.016820375 = product of:
  0.0672815 = sum of:
    0.0672815 = product of:
      0.10092224 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
        0.091050655 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091050655 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
    Type
    a
  5. Chakrabarti, S.; Dom, B.; Kumar, S.R.; Raghavan, P.; Rajagopalan, S.; Tomkins, A.; Kleinberg, J.M.; Gibson, D.: Neue Pfade durch den Internet-Dschungel : Die zweite Generation von Web-Suchmaschinen (1999) 0.02 
    0.016429678 = product of:
  0.032859355 = sum of:
    0.030200208 = weight(_text_:von in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030200208 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.23581557 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
    0.0026591495 = product of:
      0.007977448 = sum of:
        0.007977448 = weight(_text_:a in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007977448 = score(doc=3,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Type
    a
  6. Chen, Z.; Meng, X.; Fowler, R.H.; Zhu, B.: Real-time adaptive feature and document learning for Web search (2001) 0.01 
    0.014448237 = product of:
  0.057792947 = sum of:
    0.057792947 = product of:
      0.08668942 = sum of:
        0.0111488225 = weight(_text_:a in 5209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0111488225 = score(doc=5209,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 5209, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5209)
        0.075540595 = weight(_text_:z in 5209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075540595 = score(doc=5209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2562021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 5209, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5209)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Chen et alia report on the design of FEATURES, a web search engine with adaptive features based on minimal relevance feedback. Rather than developing user profiles from previous searcher activity either at the server or client location, or updating indexes after search completion, FEATURES allows for index and user characterization files to be updated during query modification on retrieval from a general purpose search engine. Indexing terms relevant to a query are defined as the union of all terms assigned to documents retrieved by the initial search run and are used to build a vector space model on this retrieved set. The top ten weighted terms are presented to the user for a relevant non-relevant choice which is used to modify the term weights. Documents are chosen if their summed term weights are greater than some threshold. A user evaluation of the top ten ranked documents as non-relevant will decrease these term weights and a positive judgement will increase them. A new ordering of the retrieved set will generate new display lists of terms and documents. Precision is improved in a test on Alta Vista searches.
    Type
    a
  7. Lanvent, A.: Licht im Daten Chaos (2004) 0.01 
    0.013741862 = product of:
  0.027483724 = sum of:
    0.02615415 = weight(_text_:von in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02615415 = score(doc=2806,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.20422229 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
    0.0013295747 = product of:
      0.003988724 = sum of:
        0.003988724 = weight(_text_:a in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003988724 = score(doc=2806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Spätestens bei der Suche nach E-Mails, PDF-Dokumenten oder Bildern mit Texten kapituliert die Windows-Suche. Vier von neun Desktop-Suchtools finden dagegen beinahe jede verborgene Datei.
    Content
    "Bitte suchen Sie alle Unterlagen, die im PC zum Ibelshäuser-Vertrag in Sprockhövel gespeichert sind. Finden Sie alles, was wir haben - Dokumente, Tabellen, Präsentationen, Scans, E-Mails. Und erledigen Sie das gleich! « Wer diese Aufgabe an das Windows-eigene Suchmodul vergibt, wird zwangsläufig enttäuscht. Denn das Betriebssystem beherrscht weder die formatübergreifende Recherche noch die Kontextsuche, die für solche komplexen Aufträge nötig sind. Professionelle Desktop-Suchmaschinen erledigen Aufgaben dieser Art jedoch im Handumdrehen - genauer gesagt in einer einzigen Sekunde. Spitzenprogramme wie Global Brain benötigen dafür nicht einmal umfangreiche Abfrageformulare. Es genügt, einen Satz im Eingabefeld zu formulieren, der das Thema der gewünschten Dokumente eingrenzt. Dabei suchen die Programme über alle Laufwerke, die sich auf dem System einbinden lassen - also auch im Netzwerk-Ordner (Shared Folder), sofern dieser freigegeben wurde. Allen Testkandidaten - mit Ausnahme von Search 32 - gemeinsam ist, dass sie weitaus bessere Rechercheergebnisse abliefern als Windows, deutlich schneller arbeiten und meist auch in den Online-Postfächern stöbern. Wer schon öfter vergeblich über die Windows-Suche nach wichtigen Dokumenten gefahndet hat, kommt angesichts der Qualität der Search-Engines kaum mehr um die Anschaffung eines Desktop-Suchtools herum. Aber Microsoft will nachbessern. Für den Windows-XP-Nachfolger Longhorn wirbt der Hersteller vor allem mit dem Hinweis auf das neue Dateisystem WinFS, das sämtliche Files auf der Festplatte über Meta-Tags indiziert und dem Anwender damit lange Suchläufe erspart. So sollen sich anders als bei Windows XP alle Dateien zu bestimmten Themen in wenigen Sekunden auflisten lassen - unabhängig vom Format und vom physikalischen Speicherort der Files. Für die Recherche selbst ist dann weder der Dateiname noch das Erstelldatum ausschlaggebend. Anhand der kontextsensitiven Suche von WinFS kann der Anwender einfach einen Suchbefehl wie »Vertragsabschluss mit Firma XYZ, Neunkirchen/Saar« eingeben, der dann ohne Umwege zum Ziel führt."
    Type
    a
  8. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.01 
    0.007913846 = product of:
  0.031655382 = sum of:
    0.031655382 = product of:
      0.04748307 = sum of:
        0.008461362 = weight(_text_:a in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008461362 = score(doc=2717,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
        0.039021708 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039021708 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Previous work an search-engine design has indicated that information-seekers may benefit from being given the opportunity to exploit multiple sources of evidence of document relatedness. Few existing systems, however, give users more than minimal control over the selections that may be made among methods of exploitation. By applying the methods of "document network analysis" (DNA), a unifying, graph-theoretic model of content-, collaboration-, and context-based systems (CCC) may be developed in which the nature of the similarities between types of document relatedness and document ranking are clarified. The usefulness of the approach to system design suggested by this model may be tested by constructing and evaluating a prototype system (UCXtra) that allows searchers to maintain control over the multiple ways in which document collections may be ranked and re-ranked.
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
    Type
    a
  9. Bauckhage, C.: Marginalizing over the PageRank damping factor (2014) 0.00 
    0.001175189 = product of:
  0.004700756 = sum of:
    0.004700756 = product of:
      0.014102268 = sum of:
        0.014102268 = weight(_text_:a in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014102268 = score(doc=928,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this note, we show how to marginalize over the damping parameter of the PageRank equation so as to obtain a parameter-free version known as TotalRank. Our discussion is meant as a reference and intended to provide a guided tour towards an interesting result that has applications in information retrieval and classification.
    Type
    a
  10. Watters, C.; Amoudi, A.: Geosearcher : location-based ranking of search engine results (2003) 0.00 
    0.001137872 = product of:
  0.004551488 = sum of:
    0.004551488 = product of:
      0.013654463 = sum of:
        0.013654463 = weight(_text_:a in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013654463 = score(doc=5152,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Waters and Amoudi describe GeoSearcher, a prototype ranking program that arranges search engine results along a geo-spatial dimension without the provision of geo-spatial meta-tags or the use of geo-spatial feature extraction. GeoSearcher uses URL analysis, IptoLL, Whois, and the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names to determine site location. It accepts the first 200 sites returned by a search engine, identifies the coordinates, calculates their distance from a reference point and ranks in ascending order by this value. For any retrieved site the system checks if it has already been located in the current session, then sends the domain name to Whois to generate a return of a two letter country code and an area code. With no success the name is stripped one level and resent. If this fails the top level domain is tested for being a country code. Any remaining unmatched names go to IptoLL. Distance is calculated using the center point of the geographic area and a provided reference location. A test run on a set of 100 URLs from a search was successful in locating 90 sites. Eighty three pages could be manually found and 68 had sufficient information to verify location determination. Of these 65 ( 95%) had been assigned reasonably correct geographic locations. A random set of URLs used instead of a search result, yielded 80% success.
    Type
    a
  11. Dominich, S.; Skrop, A.: PageRank and interaction information retrieval (2005) 0.00 
    0.0010576702 = product of:
  0.004230681 = sum of:
    0.004230681 = product of:
      0.012692042 = sum of:
        0.012692042 = weight(_text_:a in 3268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012692042 = score(doc=3268,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 3268, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3268)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The PageRank method is used by the Google Web search engine to compute the importance of Web pages. Two different views have been developed for the Interpretation of the PageRank method and values: (a) stochastic (random surfer): the PageRank values can be conceived as the steady-state distribution of a Markov chain, and (b) algebraic: the PageRank values form the eigenvector corresponding to eigenvalue 1 of the Web link matrix. The Interaction Information Retrieval (1**2 R) method is a nonclassical information retrieval paradigm, which represents a connectionist approach based an dynamic systems. In the present paper, a different Interpretation of PageRank is proposed, namely, a dynamic systems viewpoint, by showing that the PageRank method can be formally interpreted as a particular case of the Interaction Information Retrieval method; and thus, the PageRank values may be interpreted as neutral equilibrium points of the Web.
    Type
    a
  12. Lempel, R.; Moran, S.: SALSA: the stochastic approach for link-structure analysis (2001) 0.00 
    9.7441534E-4 = product of:
  0.0038976613 = sum of:
    0.0038976613 = product of:
      0.011692984 = sum of:
        0.011692984 = weight(_text_:a in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011692984 = score(doc=10,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Today, when searching for information on the WWW, one usually performs a query through a term-based search engine. These engines return, as the query's result, a list of Web pages whose contents matches the query. For broad-topic queries, such searches often result in a huge set of retrieved documents, many of which are irrelevant to the user. However, much information is contained in the link-structure of the WWW. Information such as which pages are linked to others can be used to augment search algorithms. In this context, Jon Kleinberg introduced the notion of two distinct types of Web pages: hubs and authorities. Kleinberg argued that hubs and authorities exhibit a mutually reinforcing relationship: a good hub will point to many authorities, and a good authority will be pointed at by many hubs. In light of this, he dervised an algoirthm aimed at finding authoritative pages. We present SALSA, a new stochastic approach for link-structure analysis, which examines random walks on graphs derived from the link-structure. We show that both SALSA and Kleinberg's Mutual Reinforcement approach employ the same metaalgorithm. We then prove that SALSA is quivalent to a weighted in degree analysis of the link-sturcutre of WWW subgraphs, making it computationally more efficient than the Mutual reinforcement approach. We compare that results of applying SALSA to the results derived through Kleinberg's approach. These comparisions reveal a topological Phenomenon called the TKC effectwhich, in certain cases, prevents the Mutual reinforcement approach from identifying meaningful authorities.
    Type
    a
  13. Meghabghab, G.: Google's Web page ranking applied to different topological Web graph structures (2001) 0.00 
    9.2906854E-4 = product of:
  0.0037162742 = sum of:
    0.0037162742 = product of:
      0.0111488225 = sum of:
        0.0111488225 = weight(_text_:a in 6028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0111488225 = score(doc=6028,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 6028, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6028)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This research is part of the ongoing study to better understand web page ranking on the web. It looks at a web page as a graph structure or a web graph, and tries to classify different web graphs in the new coordinate space: (out-degree, in-degree). The out-degree coordinate od is defined as the number of outgoing web pages from a given web page. The in-degree id coordinate is the number of web pages that point to a given web page. In this new coordinate space a metric is built to classify how close or far different web graphs are. Google's web ranking algorithm (Brin & Page, 1998) on ranking web pages is applied in this new coordinate space. The results of the algorithm has been modified to fit different topological web graph structures. Also the algorithm was not successful in the case of general web graphs and new ranking web algorithms have to be considered. This study does not look at enhancing web ranking by adding any contextual information. It only considers web links as a source to web page ranking. The author believes that understanding the underlying web page as a graph will help design better ranking web algorithms, enhance retrieval and web performance, and recommends using graphs as a part of visual aid for browsing engine designers
    Type
    a
  14. Agosti, M.; Pretto, L.: ¬A theoretical study of a generalized version of kleinberg's HITS algorithm (2005) 0.00 
    8.813918E-4 = product of:
  0.0035255672 = sum of:
    0.0035255672 = product of:
      0.010576702 = sum of:
        0.010576702 = weight(_text_:a in 4) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010576702 = score(doc=4,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 4, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Kleinberg's HITS (Hyperlink-Induced Topic Search) algorithm (Kleinberg 1999), which was originally developed in a Web context, tries to infer the authoritativeness of a Web page in relation to a specific query using the structure of a subgraph of the Web graph, which is obtained considering this specific query. Recent applications of this algorithm in contexts far removed from that of Web searching (Bacchin, Ferro and Melucci 2002, Ng et al. 2001) inspired us to study the algorithm in the abstract, independently of its particular applications, trying to mathematically illuminate its behaviour. In the present paper we detail this theoretical analysis. The original work starts from the definition of a revised and more general version of the algorithm, which includes the classic one as a particular case. We perform an analysis of the structure of two particular matrices, essential to studying the behaviour of the algorithm, and we prove the convergence of the algorithm in the most general case, finding the analytic expression of the vectors to which it converges. Then we study the symmetry of the algorithm and prove the equivalence between the existence of symmetry and the independence from the order of execution of some basic operations on initial vectors. Finally, we expound some interesting consequences of our theoretical results.
    Type
    a
  15. Radev, D.; Fan, W.; Qu, H.; Wu, H.; Grewal, A.: Probabilistic question answering on the Web (2005) 0.00 
    8.63584E-4 = product of:
  0.003454336 = sum of:
    0.003454336 = product of:
      0.010363008 = sum of:
        0.010363008 = weight(_text_:a in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010363008 = score(doc=3455,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Web-based search engines such as Google and NorthernLight return documents that are relevant to a user query, not answers to user questions. We have developed an architecture that augments existing search engines so that they support natural language question answering. The process entails five steps: query modulation, document retrieval, passage extraction, phrase extraction, and answer ranking. In this article, we describe some probabilistic approaches to the last three of these stages. We show how our techniques apply to a number of existing search engines, and we also present results contrasting three different methods for question answering. Our algorithm, probabilistic phrase reranking (PPR), uses proximity and question type features and achieves a total reciprocal document rank of .20 an the TREC8 corpus. Our techniques have been implemented as a Web-accessible system, called NSIR.
    Type
    a
  16. Weinstein, A.: Hochprozentig : Tipps and tricks für ein Top-Ranking (2002) 0.00 
    8.309842E-4 = product of:
  0.0033239368 = sum of:
    0.0033239368 = product of:
      0.0099718105 = sum of:
        0.0099718105 = weight(_text_:a in 1083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0099718105 = score(doc=1083,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 1083, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1083)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  17. Zhang, D.; Dong, Y.: ¬An effective algorithm to rank Web resources (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  18. Notess, G.R.: Search engine relevance : the never-ending quest (2000) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 4797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=4797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 4797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4797)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  19. Finding anything in the billion page Web : are algorithms the key? (1999) 0.00 
    8.2263234E-4 = product of:
  0.0032905294 = sum of:
    0.0032905294 = product of:
      0.009871588 = sum of:
        0.009871588 = weight(_text_:a in 6248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009871588 = score(doc=6248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6248)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  20. Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, G.; Foo, S.: Organsising keywords in a Web search environment : a methodology based on co-word analysis (2000) 0.00 
    7.883408E-4 = product of:
  0.0031533632 = sum of:
    0.0031533632 = product of:
      0.00946009 = sum of:
        0.00946009 = weight(_text_:a in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00946009 = score(doc=105,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 105, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=105)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The rapid development of the Internet and World Wide Web has caused some critical problem for information retrieval. Researchers have made several attempts to solve these problems. Thesauri and subject heading lists as traditional information retrieval tools have been criticised for their efficiency to tackle these newly emerging problems. This paper proposes an information retrieval tool generated by cocitation analysis, comprising keyword clusters with relationships based on the co-occurrences of keywords in the literature. Such a tool can play the role of an associative thesaurus that can provide information about the keywords in a domain that might be useful for information searching and query expansion
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 22
  • d 8

Themes