Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Klas, C.-P.; Fuhr, N.; Schaefer, A.: Evaluating strategic support for information access in the DAFFODIL system (2004) 0.04 
    0.03847589 = product of:
  0.07695178 = sum of:
    0.07695178 = sum of:
      0.03456243 = weight(_text_:data in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03456243 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
      0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238935 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.
    Date
    16.11.2008 16:22:48
  2. Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.: Query expansion behavior within a thesaurus-enhanced search environment : a user-centered evaluation (2006) 0.04 
    0.038028337 = product of:
  0.076056674 = sum of:
    0.076056674 = sum of:
      0.040732216 = weight(_text_:data in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040732216 = score(doc=56,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
      0.035324458 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035324458 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052144732 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:32:43
  3. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.02 
    0.024727121 = product of:
  0.049454242 = sum of:
    0.049454242 = product of:
      0.098908484 = sum of:
        0.098908484 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098908484 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
  4. Bodoff, D.; Enache, D.; Kambil, A.; Simon, G.; Yukhimets, A.: ¬A unified maximum likelihood approach to document retrieval (2001) 0.02 
    0.019320987 = product of:
  0.038641974 = sum of:
    0.038641974 = product of:
      0.07728395 = sum of:
        0.07728395 = weight(_text_:data in 174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07728395 = score(doc=174,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 174, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=174)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Empirical work shows significant benefits from using relevance feedback data to improve information retrieval (IR) performance. Still, one fundamental difficulty has limited the ability to fully exploit this valuable data. The problem is that it is not clear whether the relevance feedback data should be used to train the system about what the users really mean, or about what the documents really mean. In this paper, we resolve the question using a maximum likelihood framework. We show how all the available data can be used to simultaneously estimate both documents and queries in proportions that are optimal in a maximum likelihood sense. The resulting algorithm is directly applicable to many approaches to IR, and the unified framework can help explain previously reported results as well as guidethe search for new methods that utilize feedback data in IR
  5. Li, M.; Li, H.; Zhou, Z.-H.: Semi-supervised document retrieval (2009) 0.02 
    0.017637566 = product of:
  0.03527513 = sum of:
    0.03527513 = product of:
      0.07055026 = sum of:
        0.07055026 = weight(_text_:data in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07055026 = score(doc=4218,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.4278775 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes a new machine learning method for constructing ranking models in document retrieval. The method, which is referred to as SSRank, aims to use the advantages of both the traditional Information Retrieval (IR) methods and the supervised learning methods for IR proposed recently. The advantages include the use of limited amount of labeled data and rich model representation. To do so, the method adopts a semi-supervised learning framework in ranking model construction. Specifically, given a small number of labeled documents with respect to some queries, the method effectively labels the unlabeled documents for the queries. It then uses all the labeled data to train a machine learning model (in our case, Neural Network). In the data labeling, the method also makes use of a traditional IR model (in our case, BM25). A stopping criterion based on machine learning theory is given for the data labeling process. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets and one web search dataset indicate that SSRank consistently and almost always significantly outperforms the baseline methods (unsupervised and supervised learning methods), given the same amount of labeled data. This is because SSRank can effectively leverage the use of unlabeled data in learning.
  6. French, J.C.; Powell, A.L.; Schulman, E.: Using clustering strategies for creating authority files (2000) 0.01 
    0.014965973 = product of:
  0.029931946 = sum of:
    0.029931946 = product of:
      0.05986389 = sum of:
        0.05986389 = weight(_text_:data in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05986389 = score(doc=4811,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    As more online databases are integrated into digital libraries, the issue of quality control of the data becomes increasingly important, especially as it relates to the effective retrieval of information. Authority work, the need to discover and reconcile variant forms of strings in bibliographical entries, will become more critical in the future. Spelling variants, misspellings, and transliteration differences will all increase the difficulty of retrieving information. We investigate a number of approximate string matching techniques that have traditionally been used to help with this problem. We then introduce the notion of approximate word matching and show how it can be used to improve detection and categorization of variant forms. We demonstrate the utility of these approaches using data from the Astrophysics Data System and show how we can reduce the human effort involved in the creation of authority files
  7. Bodoff, D.; Robertson, S.: ¬A new unified probabilistic model (2004) 0.01 
    0.014965973 = product of:
  0.029931946 = sum of:
    0.029931946 = product of:
      0.05986389 = sum of:
        0.05986389 = weight(_text_:data in 2129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05986389 = score(doc=2129,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 2129, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2129)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes a new unified probabilistic model. Two previous models, Robertson et al.'s "Model 0" and "Model 3," each have strengths and weaknesses. The strength of Model 0 not found in Model 3, is that it does not require relevance data about the particular document or query, and, related to that, its probability estimates are straightforward. The strength of Model 3 not found in Model 0 is that it can utilize feedback information about the particular document and query in question. In this paper we introduce a new unified probabilistic model that combines these strengths: the expression of its probabilities is straightforward, it does not require that data must be available for the particular document or query in question, but it can utilize such specific data if it is available. The model is one way to resolve the difficulty of combining two marginal views in probabilistic retrieval.
  8. Beitzel, S.M.; Jensen, E.C.; Chowdhury, A.; Grossman, D.; Frieder, O; Goharian, N.: Fusion of effective retrieval strategies in the same information retrieval system (2004) 0.01 
    0.014965973 = product of:
  0.029931946 = sum of:
    0.029931946 = product of:
      0.05986389 = sum of:
        0.05986389 = weight(_text_:data in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05986389 = score(doc=2502,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  9. Heinz, S.; Zobel, J.: Efficient single-pass index construction for text databases (2003) 0.01 
    0.014256276 = product of:
  0.028512552 = sum of:
    0.028512552 = product of:
      0.057025105 = sum of:
        0.057025105 = weight(_text_:data in 1678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057025105 = score(doc=1678,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 1678, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Efficient construction of inverted indexes is essential to provision of search over large collections of text data. In this article, we review the principal approaches to inversion, analyze their theoretical cost, and present experimental results. We identify the drawbacks of existing inversion approaches and propose a single-pass inversion method that, in contrast to previous approaches, does not require the complete vocabulary of the indexed collection in main memory, can operate within limited resources, and does not sacrifice speed with high temporary storage requirements. We show that the performance of the single-pass approach can be improved by constructing inverted files in segments, reducing the cost of disk accesses during inversion of large volumes of data.
  10. MacFarlane, A.; Robertson, S.E.; McCann, J.A.: Parallel computing for passage retrieval (2004) 0.01 
    0.014129783 = product of:
  0.028259566 = sum of:
    0.028259566 = product of:
      0.056519132 = sum of:
        0.056519132 = weight(_text_:22 in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056519132 = score(doc=5108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5108, 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=5108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 18:30:22
  11. Losada, D.E.; Barreiro, A.: Emebedding term similarity and inverse document frequency into a logical model of information retrieval (2003) 0.01 
    0.014129783 = product of:
  0.028259566 = sum of:
    0.028259566 = product of:
      0.056519132 = sum of:
        0.056519132 = weight(_text_:22 in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056519132 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1422, 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=1422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2003 19:27:23
  12. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.01 
    0.0123635605 = product of:
  0.024727121 = sum of:
    0.024727121 = product of:
      0.049454242 = sum of:
        0.049454242 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454242 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  13. White, K.J.; Sutcliffe, R.F.E.: Applying incremental tree induction to retrieval : from manuals and medical texts (2006) 0.01 
    0.012219666 = product of:
  0.024439331 = sum of:
    0.024439331 = product of:
      0.048878662 = sum of:
        0.048878662 = weight(_text_:data in 5044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048878662 = score(doc=5044,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 5044, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Decision Tree Forest (DTF) is an architecture for information retrieval that uses a separate decision tree for each document in a collection. Experiments were conducted in which DTFs working with the incremental tree induction (ITI) algorithm of Utgoff, Berkman, and Clouse (1997) were trained and evaluated in the medical and word processing domains using the Cystic Fibrosis and SIFT collections. Performance was compared with that of a conventional inverted index system (IIS) using a BM25-derived probabilistic matching function. Initial results using DTF were poor compared to those obtained with IIS. We then simulated scenarios in which large quantities of training data were available, by using only those parts of the document collection that were well covered by the data sets. Consequently, the retrieval effectiveness of DTF improved substantially. In one particular experiment, precision and recall for DTF were 0.65 and 0.67 respectively, values that compared favorably with values of 0.49 and 0.56 for IIS.
  14. Kekäläinen, J.: Binary and graded relevance in IR evaluations : comparison of the effects on ranking of IR systems (2005) 0.01 
    0.012219666 = product of:
  0.024439331 = sum of:
    0.024439331 = product of:
      0.048878662 = sum of:
        0.048878662 = weight(_text_:data in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048878662 = score(doc=1036,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this study the rankings of IR systems based on binary and graded relevance in TREC 7 and 8 data are compared. Relevance of a sample TREC results is reassessed using a relevance scale with four levels: non-relevant, marginally relevant, fairly relevant, highly relevant. Twenty-one topics and 90 systems from TREC 7 and 20 topics and 121 systems from TREC 8 form the data. Binary precision, and cumulated gain, discounted cumulated gain and normalised discounted cumulated gain are the measures compared. Different weighting schemes for relevance levels are tested with cumulated gain measures. Kendall's rank correlations are computed to determine to what extent the rankings produced by different measures are similar. Weighting schemes from binary to emphasising highly relevant documents form a continuum, where the measures correlate strongly in the binary end, and less in the heavily weighted end. The results show the different character of the measures.
  15. Crestani, F.; Dominich, S.; Lalmas, M.; Rijsbergen, C.J.K. van: Mathematical, logical, and formal methods in information retrieval : an introduction to the special issue (2003) 0.01 
    0.010597337 = product of:
  0.021194674 = sum of:
    0.021194674 = product of:
      0.04238935 = sum of:
        0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04238935 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2003 19:27:36
  16. Fan, W.; Fox, E.A.; Pathak, P.; Wu, H.: ¬The effects of fitness functions an genetic programming-based ranking discovery for Web search (2004) 0.01 
    0.010597337 = product of:
  0.021194674 = sum of:
    0.021194674 = product of:
      0.04238935 = sum of:
        0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04238935 = score(doc=2239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2239, 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=2239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    31. 5.2004 19:22:06
  17. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.01 
    0.010597337 = product of:
  0.021194674 = sum of:
    0.021194674 = product of:
      0.04238935 = sum of:
        0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04238935 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
  18. Witschel, H.F.: Global term weights in distributed environments (2008) 0.01 
    0.010597337 = product of:
  0.021194674 = sum of:
    0.021194674 = product of:
      0.04238935 = sum of:
        0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04238935 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2096, 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=2096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.2008 9:44:22
  19. Campos, L.M. de; Fernández-Luna, J.M.; Huete, J.F.: Implementing relevance feedback in the Bayesian network retrieval model (2003) 0.01 
    0.010597337 = product of:
  0.021194674 = sum of:
    0.021194674 = product of:
      0.04238935 = sum of:
        0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04238935 = score(doc=825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 825, 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=825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2003 19:30:19
  20. Quiroga, L.M.; Mostafa, J.: ¬An experiment in building profiles in information filtering : the role of context of user relevance feedback (2002) 0.01 
    0.010183054 = product of:
  0.020366108 = sum of:
    0.020366108 = product of:
      0.040732216 = sum of:
        0.040732216 = weight(_text_:data in 2579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040732216 = score(doc=2579,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 2579, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2579)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.

Authors

Languages

  • e 41
  • d 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 37
  • m 5
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications