Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Bhansali, D.; Desai, H.; Deulkar, K.: ¬A study of different ranking approaches for semantic search (2015) 0.00
    0.0029157193 = product of:
      0.029157192 = sum of:
        0.029157192 = weight(_text_:web in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029157192 = score(doc=2696,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    Search Engines have become an integral part of our day to day life. Our reliance on search engines increases with every passing day. With the amount of data available on Internet increasing exponentially, it becomes important to develop new methods and tools that help to return results relevant to the queries and reduce the time spent on searching. The results should be diverse but at the same time should return results focused on the queries asked. Relation Based Page Rank [4] algorithms are considered to be the next frontier in improvement of Semantic Web Search. The probability of finding relevance in the search results as posited by the user while entering the query is used to measure the relevance. However, its application is limited by the complexity of determining relation between the terms and assigning explicit meaning to each term. Trust Rank is one of the most widely used ranking algorithms for semantic web search. Few other ranking algorithms like HITS algorithm, PageRank algorithm are also used for Semantic Web Searching. In this paper, we will provide a comparison of few ranking approaches.
  2. Jindal, V.; Bawa, S.; Batra, S.: ¬A review of ranking approaches for semantic search on Web (2014) 0.00
    0.0028568096 = product of:
      0.028568096 = sum of:
        0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028568096 = score(doc=2799,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    With ever increasing information being available to the end users, search engines have become the most powerful tools for obtaining useful information scattered on the Web. However, it is very common that even most renowned search engines return result sets with not so useful pages to the user. Research on semantic search aims to improve traditional information search and retrieval methods where the basic relevance criteria rely primarily on the presence of query keywords within the returned pages. This work is an attempt to explore different relevancy ranking approaches based on semantics which are considered appropriate for the retrieval of relevant information. In this paper, various pilot projects and their corresponding outcomes have been investigated based on methodologies adopted and their most distinctive characteristics towards ranking. An overview of selected approaches and their comparison by means of the classification criteria has been presented. With the help of this comparison, some common concepts and outstanding features have been identified.
  3. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.00
    0.0023567479 = product of:
      0.023567477 = sum of:
        0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023567477 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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.
  4. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.00
    0.0010337222 = product of:
      0.010337221 = sum of:
        0.010337221 = product of:
          0.031011663 = sum of:
            0.031011663 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031011663 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22