Search (61 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  1. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.01 
    0.007815755 = product of:
  0.039078772 = sum of:
    0.039078772 = product of:
      0.078157544 = sum of:
        0.04832165 = weight(_text_:einer in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04832165 = score(doc=3276,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.106527574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.45360696 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
        0.029835898 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029835898 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110164344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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
  2. Kelledy, F.; Smeaton, A.F.: Signature files and beyond (1996) 0.01 
    0.0069747865 = product of:
  0.017436966 = sum of:
    0.011043559 = product of:
      0.033130676 = sum of:
        0.033130676 = weight(_text_:f in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033130676 = score(doc=6973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 6973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0063934065 = product of:
      0.025573626 = sum of:
        0.025573626 = weight(_text_:22 in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025573626 = score(doc=6973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110164344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6973, 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=6973)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
  3. 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 
    0.0069747865 = product of:
  0.017436966 = sum of:
    0.011043559 = product of:
      0.033130676 = sum of:
        0.033130676 = weight(_text_:f in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033130676 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1451, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1451)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0063934065 = product of:
      0.025573626 = sum of:
        0.025573626 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025573626 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110164344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2003 19:27:36
  4. Zhang, W.; Yoshida, T.; Tang, X.: ¬A comparative study of TF*IDF, LSI and multi-words for text classification (2011) 0.01 
    0.005746479 = product of:
  0.028732395 = sum of:
    0.028732395 = product of:
      0.08619718 = sum of:
        0.08619718 = weight(_text_:themes in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08619718 = score(doc=1165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20225134 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.42618844 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.429029 = idf(docFreq=193, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    One of the main themes in text mining is text representation, which is fundamental and indispensable for text-based intellegent information processing. Generally, text representation inludes two tasks: indexing and weighting. This paper has comparatively studied TF*IDF, LSI and multi-word for text representation. We used a Chinese and an English document collection to respectively evaluate the three methods in information retreival and text categorization. Experimental results have demonstrated that in text categorization, LSI has better performance than other methods in both document collections. Also, LSI has produced the best performance in retrieving English documents. This outcome has shown that LSI has both favorable semantic and statistical quality and is different with the claim that LSI can not produce discriminative power for indexing.
  5. Ackermann, J.: Knuth-Morris-Pratt (2005) 0.01 
    0.0051994896 = product of:
  0.012998724 = sum of:
    0.0073623727 = product of:
      0.022087118 = sum of:
        0.022087118 = weight(_text_:f in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022087118 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.17614852 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.005636351 = product of:
      0.022545405 = sum of:
        0.022545405 = weight(_text_:einer in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022545405 = score(doc=865,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.106527574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.21163915 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen des Seminars Suchmaschinen und Suchalgorithmen beschäftigt sich diese Arbeit mit dem Auffinden bestimmter Wörter oder Muster in Texten. Der Begriff "Text" wird hier in einem sehr allgemeinen Sinne als strukturierte Folge beliebiger Länge von Zeichen aus einem endlichen Alphabet verstanden. Somit fällt unter diesen Bereich ganz allgemein die Suche nach einem Muster in einer Sequenz von Zeichen. Beispiele hierfür sind neben der Suche von Wörtern in "literarischen" Texten, z.B. das Finden von Pixelfolgen in Bildern oder gar das Finden von Mustern in DNS-Strängen. Das Anwendungsgebiet für eine solche Suche ist weit gefächert. Man denke hier allein an Texteditoren, Literaturdatenbanken, digitale Lexika oder die besagte DNADatenbank. Betrachtet man allein das 1989 publizierte Oxford English Dictionary mit seinen etwa 616500 definierten Stichworten auf gedruckten 21728 Seiten, so gilt es, einen möglichst effizienten Algorithmus für die Suche in Texten zu nutzen. Der in der Arbeit zugrunde liegende Datentyp ist vom Typ String (Zeichenkette), wobei hier offen gelassen wird, wie der Datentyp programmtechnisch realisiert wird. Algorithmen zur Verarbeitung von Zeichenketten (string processing) umfassen ein bestimmtes Spektrum an Anwendungsgebieten [Ot96, S.617 f.], wie z.B. das Komprimieren, das Verschlüssen, das Analysieren (parsen), das Übersetzen von Texten sowie das Suchen in Texten, welches Thema dieses Seminars ist. Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit wird der Knuth-Morris-Pratt Algorithmus vorgestellt, der wie der ebenfalls in diesem Seminar vorgestellte Boyer-Moore Algorithmus einen effizienten Suchalgorithmus darstellt. Dabei soll ein gegebenes Suchwort oder Muster (pattern) in einer gegeben Zeichenkette erkannt werden (pattern matching). Gesucht werden dabei ein oder mehrere Vorkommen eines bestimmten Suchwortes (exact pattern matching). Der Knuth-Morris-Pratt Algorithmus wurde erstmals 1974 als Institutbericht der Stanford University beschrieben und erschien 1977 in der Fachzeitschrift Journal of Computing unter dem Titel "Fast Pattern Matching in Strings" [Kn77]. Der Algorithmus beschreibt eine Suche in Zeichenketten mit linearer Laufzeit. Der Name des Algorithmus setzt sich aus den Entwicklern des Algorithmus Donald E. Knuth, James H. Morris und Vaughan R. Pratt zusammen.
  6. Crestani, F.: Combination of similarity measures for effective spoken document retrieval (2003) 0.01 
    0.0051536607 = product of:
  0.025768302 = sum of:
    0.025768302 = product of:
      0.07730491 = sum of:
        0.07730491 = weight(_text_:f in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07730491 = score(doc=4690,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.6165198 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  7. Jacso, P.: Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster (2008) 0.00 
    0.004115692 = product of:
  0.020578459 = sum of:
    0.020578459 = product of:
      0.061735373 = sum of:
        0.061735373 = weight(_text_:f in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061735373 = score(doc=5586,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.4923501 = fieldWeight in 5586, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5586)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the practical limitations in the content and software of the databases that are used to calculate the h-index for assessing the publishing productivity and impact of researchers. To celebrate F. W. Lancaster's biological age of seventy-five, and "scientific age" of forty-five, this paper discusses the related features of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS), and demonstrates in the latter how a much more realistic and fair h-index can be computed for F. W. Lancaster than the one produced automatically. Browsing and searching the cited reference index of the 1945-2007 edition of WoS, which in my estimate has over a hundred million "orphan references" that have no counterpart master records to be attached to, and "stray references" that cite papers which do have master records but cannot be identified by the matching algorithm because of errors of omission and commission in the references of the citing works, can bring up hundreds of additional cited references given to works of an accomplished author but are ignored in the automatic process of calculating the h-index. The partially manual process doubled the h-index value for F. W. Lancaster from 13 to 26, which is a much more realistic value for an information scientist and professor of his stature.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'The Influence of F. W. Lancaster on Information Science and on Libraries', das als Festschrift für F.W. Lancaster deklariert ist.
  8. Voorhees, E.M.: Implementing agglomerative hierarchic clustering algorithms for use in document retrieval (1986) 0.00 
    0.003409817 = product of:
  0.017049085 = sum of:
    0.017049085 = product of:
      0.06819634 = sum of:
        0.06819634 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06819634 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110164344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476
  9. Smeaton, A.F.; Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬The retrieval effects of query expansion on a feedback document retrieval system (1983) 0.00 
    0.00298359 = product of:
  0.014917949 = sum of:
    0.014917949 = product of:
      0.059671797 = sum of:
        0.059671797 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059671797 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110164344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, 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=2134)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    30. 3.2001 13:32:22
  10. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.00 
    0.00298359 = product of:
  0.014917949 = sum of:
    0.014917949 = product of:
      0.059671797 = sum of:
        0.059671797 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059671797 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110164344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
  11. Can, F.: Incremental clustering for dynamic information processing (1993) 0.00 
    0.002944949 = product of:
  0.014724745 = sum of:
    0.014724745 = product of:
      0.044174235 = sum of:
        0.044174235 = weight(_text_:f in 6627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044174235 = score(doc=6627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.35229704 = fieldWeight in 6627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6627)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  12. Wartik, S.; Fox, E.; Heath, L.; Chen, Q.-F.: Hashing algorithms (1992) 0.00 
    0.002944949 = product of:
  0.014724745 = sum of:
    0.014724745 = product of:
      0.044174235 = sum of:
        0.044174235 = weight(_text_:f in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044174235 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.35229704 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  13. Guerrero-Bote, V.P.; Moya Anegón, F. de; Herrero Solana, V.: Document organization using Kohonen's algorithm (2002) 0.00 
    0.002944949 = product of:
  0.014724745 = sum of:
    0.014724745 = product of:
      0.044174235 = sum of:
        0.044174235 = weight(_text_:f in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044174235 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.35229704 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  14. López-Pujalte, C.; Guerrero-Bote, V.P.; Moya-Anegón, F. de: Genetic algorithms in relevance feedback : a second test and new contributions (2003) 0.00 
    0.0025768303 = product of:
  0.012884151 = sum of:
    0.012884151 = product of:
      0.038652454 = sum of:
        0.038652454 = weight(_text_:f in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038652454 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.3082599 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  15. López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F.: ¬A study of the use of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms to learn Boolean queries : a comparative study (2009) 0.00 
    0.0025768303 = product of:
  0.012884151 = sum of:
    0.012884151 = product of:
      0.038652454 = sum of:
        0.038652454 = weight(_text_:f in 1751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038652454 = score(doc=1751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12538917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.3082599 = fieldWeight in 1751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1751)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  16. Fuhr, N.: Ranking-Experimente mit gewichteter Indexierung (1986) 0.00 
    0.0025573627 = product of:
  0.012786813 = sum of:
    0.012786813 = product of:
      0.051147252 = sum of:
        0.051147252 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051147252 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110164344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    14. 6.2015 22:12:44
  17. Fuhr, N.: Rankingexperimente mit gewichteter Indexierung (1986) 0.00 
    0.0025573627 = product of:
  0.012786813 = sum of:
    0.012786813 = product of:
      0.051147252 = sum of:
        0.051147252 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051147252 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110164344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    14. 6.2015 22:12:56
  18. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001) 0.00 
    0.0023913016 = product of:
  0.011956507 = sum of:
    0.011956507 = product of:
      0.04782603 = sum of:
        0.04782603 = weight(_text_:einer in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04782603 = score(doc=5771,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.106527574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.44895446 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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?
  19. Dreßler, H.: Fuzzy Information Retrieval (2008) 0.00 
    0.0019927511 = product of:
  0.0099637555 = sum of:
    0.0099637555 = product of:
      0.039855022 = sum of:
        0.039855022 = weight(_text_:einer in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039855022 = score(doc=2300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.106527574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.3741287 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Nach einer Erläuterung der Grundlagen der Fuzzylogik wird das Prinzip der unscharfen Suche dargestellt und die Unterschiede zum herkömmlichen Information Retrieval beschrieben. Am Beispiel der Suche nach Steinen für ein Mauerwerk wird gezeigt, wie eine unscharfe Suche in der D&WFuzzydatenbank erfolgreich durchgeführt werden kann und zu eindeutigen Ergebnissen führt.
  20. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.00 
    0.001972723 = product of:
  0.009863615 = sum of:
    0.009863615 = product of:
      0.03945446 = sum of:
        0.03945446 = weight(_text_:einer in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03945446 = score(doc=5023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.106527574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031459082 = queryNorm
            0.3703685 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3862264 = idf(docFreq=4066, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 40
  • d 20
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 51
  • x 6
  • m 3
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications