Search (132 results, page 2 of 7)

0.011549704 = product of:
  0.051973667 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
    0.037155323 = product of:
      0.074310645 = sum of:
        0.074310645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074310645 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.011269441 = product of:
  0.050712485 = sum of:
    0.026184686 = weight(_text_:of in 5764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026184686 = score(doc=5764,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4274153 = fieldWeight in 5764, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5764)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 5764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=5764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5764)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Text retrieval systems store a great variety of documents, from abstracts, newspaper articles, and Web pages to journal articles, books, court transcripts, and legislation. Collections of diverse types of documents expose shortcomings in current approaches to ranking. Use of short fragments of documents, called passages, instead of whole documents can overcome these shortcomings: passage ranking provides convenient units of text to return to the user, can avoid the difficulties of comparing documents of different length, and enables identification of short blocks of relevant material among otherwise irrelevant text. In this article, we compare several kinds of passage in an extensive series of experiments. We introduce a new type of passage, overlapping fragments of either fixed or variable length. We show that ranking with these arbitrary passages gives substantial improvements in retrieval effectiveness over traditional document ranking schemes, particularly for queries on collections of long documents. Ranking with arbitrary passages shows consistent improvements compared to ranking with whole documents, and to ranking with previous passage types that depend on document structure or topic shifts in documents

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.344-364

0.011127857 = product of:
  0.050075352 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=4487,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=4487,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The increasing flood of documentary information through the Internet and other information sources challenges the developers of information retrieval systems. It is not enough that an IR system is able to make a distinction between relevant and non-relevant documents. The reduction of information overload requires that IR systems provide the capability of screening the most valuable documents out of the mass of potentially or marginally relevant documents. This paper introduces a new concept-based method to analyse the text characteristics of documents at varying relevance levels. The results of the document analysis were applied in an experiment on query expansion (QE) in a probabilistic IR system. Statistical differences in textual characteristics of highly relevant and less relevant documents were investigated by applying a facet analysis technique. In highly relevant documents a larger number of aspects of the request were discussed, searchable expressions for the aspects were distributed over a larger set of text paragraphs, and a larger set of unique expressions were used per aspect than in marginally relevant documents. A query expansion experiment verified that the findings of the text analysis can be exploited in formulating more effective queries for best match retrieval in the search for highly relevant documents. The results revealed that expanded queries with concept-based structures performed better than unexpanded queries or Ñnatural languageÒ queries. Further, it was shown that highly relevant documents benefit essentially more from the concept-based QE in ranking than marginally relevant documents.

Source

Journal of documentation. 57(2001) no.3, S.358-376

0.011016016 = product of:
  0.049572073 = sum of:
    0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 1751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020956306 = score(doc=1751,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1751, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1751)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 1751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=1751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1751)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In this article, our interest is focused on the automatic learning of Boolean queries in information retrieval systems (IRSs) by means of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms considering the classic performance criteria, precision and recall. We present a comparative study of four well-known, general-purpose, multi-objective evolutionary algorithms to learn Boolean queries in IRSs. These evolutionary algorithms are the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II), the first version of the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA), the second version of SPEA (SPEA2), and the Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1192-1207

0.010715243 = product of:
  0.048218597 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 4222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=4222,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 4222, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4222)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 4222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=4222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4222)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This is a thorough analysis of two techniques applied to Geographic Information Retrieval (GIR). Previous studies have researched the application of query expansion to improve the selection process of information retrieval systems. This paper emphasizes the effectiveness of the filtering of relevant documents applied to a GIR system, instead of query expansion. Based on the CLEF (Cross Language Evaluation Forum) framework available, several experiments have been run. Some based on query expansion, some on the filtering of relevant documents. The results show that filtering works better in a GIR environment, because relevant documents are not reordered in the final list.

0.010530886 = product of:
  0.047388986 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 5045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=5045,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 5045, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5045)
    0.034687545 = weight(_text_:systems in 5045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034687545 = score(doc=5045,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 5045, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5045)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In contrast to traditional information retrieval systems, which return ranked lists of documents that users must manually browse through, a question answering system attempts to directly answer natural language questions posed by the user. Although such systems possess language-processing capabilities, they still rely on traditional document retrieval techniques to generate an initial candidate set of documents. In this article, the authors argue that document retrieval for question answering represents a task different from retrieving documents in response to more general retrospective information needs. Thus, to guide future system development, specialized question answering test collections must be constructed. They show that the current evaluation resources have major shortcomings; to remedy the situation, they have manually created a small, reusable question answering test collection for research purposes. In this article they describe their methodology for building this test collection and discuss issues they encountered regarding the notion of "answer correctness."

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.7, S.851-861

0.010526687 = product of:
  0.04737009 = sum of:
    0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 2101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014666359 = score(doc=2101,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 2101, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2101)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 2101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=2101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 2101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2101)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

We demonstrate effective new methods of document ranking based on lexical cohesive relationships between query terms. The proposed methods rely solely on the lexical relationships between original query terms, and do not involve query expansion or relevance feedback. Two types of lexical cohesive relationship information between query terms are used in document ranking: short-distance collocation relationship between query terms, and long-distance relationship, determined by the collocation of query terms with other words. The methods are evaluated on TREC corpora, and show improvements over baseline systems.

0.010487429 = product of:
  0.04719343 = sum of:
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.010392102 = product of:
  0.04676446 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=1004,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 1004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=1004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1004)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Most previous information retrieval (IR) models assume that terms of queries and documents are statistically independent from each other. However, conditional independence assumption is obviously and openly understood to be wrong, so we present a new method of incorporating term dependence into a probabilistic retrieval model by adapting a dependency structured indexing system using a dependency parse tree and Chow Expansion to compensate the weakness of the assumption. In this paper, we describe a theoretic process to apply the Chow Expansion to the general probabilistic models and the state-of-the-art 2-Poisson model. Through experiments on document collections in English and Korean, we demonstrate that the incorporation of term dependences using Chow Expansion contributes to the improvement of performance in probabilistic IR systems.

0.009750018 = product of:
  0.04387508 = sum of:
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=1427,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=1427,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Fast, effective, and adaptable techniques are needed to automatically organize and retrieve information an the ever-increasing World Wide Web. In that respect, different strategies have been suggested to take hypertext links into account. For example, hyperlinks have been used to (1) enhance document representation, (2) improve document ranking by propagating document score, (3) provide an indicator of popularity, and (4) find hubs and authorities for a given topic. Although the TREC experiments have not demonstrated the usefulness of hyperlinks for retrieval, the hypertext structure is nevertheless an essential aspect of the Web, and as such, should not be ignored. The development of abstract models of the IR task was a key factor to the improvement of search engines. However, at this time conceptual tools for modeling the hypertext retrieval task are lacking, making it difficult to compare, improve, and reason an the existing techniques. This article proposes a general model for using hyperlinks based an Probabilistic Argumentation Systems, in which each of the above-mentioned techniques can be stated. This model will allow to discover some inconsistencies in the mentioned techniques, and to take a higher level and systematic approach for using hyperlinks for retrieval.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.4, S.347-355

0.00953518 = product of:
  0.04290831 = sum of:
    0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140020205 = score(doc=1615,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The Medical professionals and researchers need information from reputable sources to accomplish their work. Unfortunately, the Web has a large number of documents that are irrelevant to their work, even those documents that purport to be "medically-related." This paper describes an architecture designed to integrate advanced searching and indexing algorithms, an automatic thesaurus, or "concept space," and Kohonen-based Self-Organizing Map (SOM) technologies to provide searchers with finegrained results. Initial results indicate that these systems provide complementary retrieval functionalities. HelpfulMed not only allows users to search Web pages and other online databases, but also allows them to build searches through the use of an automatic thesaurus and browse a graphical display of medical-related topics. Evaluation results for each of the different components are included. Our spidering algorithm outperformed both breadth-first search and PageRank spiders an a test collection of 100,000 Web pages. The automatically generated thesaurus performed as well as both MeSH and UMLS-systems which require human mediation for currency. Lastly, a variant of the Kohonen SOM was comparable to MeSH terms in perceived cluster precision and significantly better at perceived cluster recall.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.7, S.683-694

0.009496141 = product of:
  0.042732634 = sum of:
    0.018889757 = weight(_text_:of in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018889757 = score(doc=93,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.30833945 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.023842877 = weight(_text_:software in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023842877 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.15340936 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Imagine a library containing 25 billion documents but with no centralized organization and no librarians. In addition, anyone may add a document at any time without telling anyone. You may feel sure that one of the documents contained in the collection has a piece of information that is vitally important to you, and, being impatient like most of us, you'd like to find it in a matter of seconds. How would you go about doing it? Posed in this way, the problem seems impossible. Yet this description is not too different from the World Wide Web, a huge, highly-disorganized collection of documents in many different formats. Of course, we're all familiar with search engines (perhaps you found this article using one) so we know that there is a solution. This article will describe Google's PageRank algorithm and how it returns pages from the web's collection of 25 billion documents that match search criteria so well that "google" has become a widely used verb. Most search engines, including Google, continually run an army of computer programs that retrieve pages from the web, index the words in each document, and store this information in an efficient format. Each time a user asks for a web search using a search phrase, such as "search engine," the search engine determines all the pages on the web that contains the words in the search phrase. (Perhaps additional information such as the distance between the words "search" and "engine" will be noted as well.) Here is the problem: Google now claims to index 25 billion pages. Roughly 95% of the text in web pages is composed from a mere 10,000 words. This means that, for most searches, there will be a huge number of pages containing the words in the search phrase. What is needed is a means of ranking the importance of the pages that fit the search criteria so that the pages can be sorted with the most important pages at the top of the list. One way to determine the importance of pages is to use a human-generated ranking. For instance, you may have seen pages that consist mainly of a large number of links to other resources in a particular area of interest. Assuming the person maintaining this page is reliable, the pages referenced are likely to be useful. Of course, the list may quickly fall out of date, and the person maintaining the list may miss some important pages, either unintentionally or as a result of an unstated bias. Google's PageRank algorithm assesses the importance of web pages without human evaluation of the content. In fact, Google feels that the value of its service is largely in its ability to provide unbiased results to search queries; Google claims, "the heart of our software is PageRank." As we'll see, the trick is to ask the web itself to rank the importance of pages.

0.0094423 = product of:
  0.04249035 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=651,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 651, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=651)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=651)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The generation of inverted indexes is one of the most computationally intensive activities for information retrieval systems: indexing large multi-gigabyte text databases can take many hours or even days to complete. We examine the generation of partitioned inverted files in order to speed up the process of indexing. Two types of index partitions are investigated: TermId and DocId. Design/methodology/approach - We use standard measures used in parallel computing such as speedup and efficiency to examine the computing results and also the space costs of our trial indexing experiments. Findings - The results from runs on both partitioning methods are compared and contrasted, concluding that DocId is the more efficient method. Practical implications - The practical implications are that the DocId partitioning method would in most circumstances be used for distributing inverted file data in a parallel computer, particularly if indexing speed is the primary consideration. Originality/value - The paper is of value to database administrators who manage large-scale text collections, and who need to use parallel computing to implement their text retrieval services.

0.009304364 = product of:
  0.04186964 = sum of:
    0.012963352 = weight(_text_:of in 269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012963352 = score(doc=269,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 269, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=269)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=269,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 269, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=269)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Query-by-humming systems offer content-based searching for melodies and require no special musical training or knowledge. Many such systems have been built, but there has not been much useful evaluation and comparison in the literature due to the lack of shared databases and queries. The MUSART project testbed allows various search algorithms to be compared using a shared framework that automatically runs experiments and summarizes results. Using this testbed, the authors compared algorithms based on string alignment, melodic contour matching, a hidden Markov model, n-grams, and CubyHum. Retrieval performance is very sensitive to distance functions and the representation of pitch and rhythm, which raises questions about some previously published conclusions. Some algorithms are particularly sensitive to the quality of queries. Our queries, which are taken from human subjects in a realistic setting, are quite difficult, especially for n-gram models. Finally, simulations on query-by-humming performance as a function of database size indicate that retrieval performance falls only slowly as the database size increases.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.5, S.687-701

0.009184495 = product of:
  0.041330226 = sum of:
    0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802425 = score(doc=2502,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Prior efforts have shown that under certain situations retrieval effectiveness may be improved via the use of data fusion techniques. Although these improvements have been observed from the fusion of result sets from several distinct information retrieval systems, it has often been thought that fusing different document retrieval strategies in a single information retrieval system will lead to similar improvements. In this study, we show that this is not the case. We hold constant systemic differences such as parsing, stemming, phrase processing, and relevance feedback, and fuse result sets generated from highly effective retrieval strategies in the same information retrieval system. From this, we show that data fusion of highly effective retrieval strategies alone shows little or no improvement in retrieval effectiveness. Furthermore, we present a detailed analysis of the performance of modern data fusion approaches, and demonstrate the reasons why they do not perform weIl when applied to this problem. Detailed results and analyses are included to support our conclusions.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.10, S.859-868

0.009116379 = product of:
  0.0410237 = sum of:
    0.012701438 = weight(_text_:of in 8) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701438 = score(doc=8,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732687 = fieldWeight in 8, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=8)
    0.028322265 = weight(_text_:systems in 8) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028322265 = score(doc=8,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 8, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=8)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Content

Information retrieval is a computer science subfield whose goal is to find all documents relevant to a user query in a given collection of documents. As such, information retrieval should really be called document retrieval. Before the advent of the Web, IR systems were typically installed in libraries for use mostly by reference librarians. The retrieval algorithm for these systems was usually based exclusively on analysis of the words in the document. The Web changed all this. Now each Web user has access to various search engines whose retrieval algorithms often use not only the words in the documents but also information like the hyperlink structure of the Web or markup language tags. How are hyperlinks useful? The hyperlink functionality alone-that is, the hyperlink to Web page B that is contained in Web page A-is not directly useful in information retrieval. However, the way Web page authors use hyperlinks can give them valuable information content. Authors usually create hyperlinks they think will be useful to readers. Some may be navigational aids that, for example, take the reader back to the site's home page; others provide access to documents that augment the content of the current page. The latter tend to point to highquality pages that might be on the same topic as the page containing the hyperlink. Web information retrieval systems can exploit this information to refine searches for relevant documents. Hyperlink analysis significantly improves the relevance of the search results, so much so that all major Web search engines claim to use some type of hyperlink analysis. However, the search engines do not disclose details about the type of hyperlink analysis they perform- mostly to avoid manipulation of search results by Web-positioning companies. In this article, I discuss how hyperlink analysis can be applied to ranking algorithms, and survey other ways Web search engines can use this analysis.

0.008942596 = product of:
  0.04024168 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 2579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=2579,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2579, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2579)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 2579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=2579,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2579, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2579)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to see how relevance feedback could be used to build and adjust profiles to improve the performance of filtering systems. Data was collected during the system interaction of 18 graduate students with SIFTER (Smart Information Filtering Technology for Electronic Resources), a filtering system that ranks incoming information based on users' profiles. The data set came from a collection of 6000 records concerning consumer health. In the first phase of the study, three different modes of profile acquisition were compared. The explicit mode allowed users to directly specify the profile; the implicit mode utilized relevance feedback to create and refine the profile; and the combined mode allowed users to initialize the profile and to continuously refine it using relevance feedback. Filtering performance, measured in terms of Normalized Precision, showed that the three approaches were significantly different ( [small alpha, Greek] =0.05 and p =0.012). The explicit mode of profile acquisition consistently produced superior results. Exclusive reliance on relevance feedback in the implicit mode resulted in inferior performance. The low performance obtained by the implicit acquisition mode motivated the second phase of the study, which aimed to clarify the role of context in relevance feedback judgments. An inductive content analysis of thinking aloud protocols showed dimensions that were highly situational, establishing the importance context plays in feedback relevance assessments. Results suggest the need for better representation of documents, profiles, and relevance feedback mechanisms that incorporate dimensions identified in this research.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: "Issues of context in information retrieval (IR)"

0.008907516 = product of:
  0.04008382 = sum of:
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=4457,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Google's PageRank is an influential algorithm that uses a model of Web use that is dominated by its link structure in order to rank pages by their estimated value to the Web community. This paper reports on the outcome of applying the algorithm to the Web sites of three national university systems in order to test whether it is capable of identifying the most important Web pages. The results are also compared with simple inlink counts. It was discovered that the highest inlinked pages do not always have the highest PageRank, indicating that the two metrics are genuinely different, even for the top pages. More significantly, however, internal links dominated external links for the high ranks in either method and superficial reasons accounted for high scores in both cases. It is concluded that PageRank is not useful for identifying the top pages in a site and that it must be combined with a powerful text matching techniques in order to get the quality of information retrieval results provided by Google.

Source

Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.2, S.205-217

0.008782783 = product of:
  0.03952252 = sum of:
    0.016397487 = weight(_text_:of in 5701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016397487 = score(doc=5701,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 5701, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5701)
    0.023125032 = weight(_text_:systems in 5701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023125032 = score(doc=5701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 5701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5701)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

A user-centered investigation of interactive query expansion within the context of a relevance feedback system is presented in this article. Data were collected from 25 searches using the INSPEC database. The data collection mechanisms included questionnaires, transaction logs, and relevance evaluations. The results discuss issues that relate to query expansion, retrieval effectiveness, the correspondence of the on-line-to-off-line relevance judgments, and the selection of terms for query expansion by users (interactive query expansion). The main conclusions drawn from the results of the study are that: (1) one-third of the terms presented to users in a list of candidate terms for query expansion was identified by the users as potentially useful for query expansion. (2) These terms were mainly judged as either variant expressions (synonyms) or alternative (related) terms to the initial query terms. However, a substantial portion of the selected terms were identified as representing new ideas. (3) The relationships identified between the five best terms selected by the users for query expansion and the initial query terms were that: (a) 34% of the query expansion terms have no relationship or other type of correspondence with a query term; (b) 66% of the remaining query expansion terms have a relationship to the query terms. These relationships were: narrower term (46%), broader term (3%), related term (17%). (4) The results provide evidence for the effectiveness of interactive query expansion. The initial search produced on average three highly relevant documents; the query expansion search produced on average nine further highly relevant documents. The conclusions highlight the need for more research on: interactive query expansion, the comparative evaluation of automatic vs. interactive query expansion, the study of weighted Webbased or Web-accessible retrieval systems in operational environments, and for user studies in searching ranked retrieval systems in general

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.11, S.989-1003

0.008273165 = product of:
  0.03722924 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 2449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=2449,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2449, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2449)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 2449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=2449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2449)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper presents a novel query expansion method, which is combined in the graph-based algorithm for query-focused multi-document summarization, so as to resolve the problem of information limit in the original query. Our approach makes use of both the sentence-to-sentence relations and the sentence-to-word relations to select the query biased informative words from the document set and use them as query expansions to improve the sentence ranking result. Compared to previous query expansion approaches, our approach can capture more relevant information with less noise. We performed experiments on the data of document understanding conference (DUC) 2005 and DUC 2006, and the evaluation results show that the proposed query expansion method can significantly improve the system performance and make our system comparable to the state-of-the-art systems.