Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017) 0.02 
    0.018491494 = product of:
  0.08629364 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=3700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.014268933 = weight(_text_:information in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014268933 = score(doc=3700,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.047367673 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047367673 = score(doc=3700,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.
  2. Ravana, S.D.; Taheri, M.S.; Rajagopal, P.: Document-based approach to improve the accuracy of pairwise comparison in evaluating information retrieval systems (2015) 0.02 
    0.016802547 = product of:
  0.058808915 = sum of:
    0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017435152 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=2587,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=2587,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2587, 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=2587)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a method to have more accurate results in comparing performance of the paired information retrieval (IR) systems with reference to the current method, which is based on the mean effectiveness scores of the systems across a set of identified topics/queries. Design/methodology/approach Based on the proposed approach, instead of the classic method of using a set of topic scores, the documents level scores are considered as the evaluation unit. These document scores are the defined document's weight, which play the role of the mean average precision (MAP) score of the systems as a significance test's statics. The experiments were conducted using the TREC 9 Web track collection. Findings The p-values generated through the two types of significance tests, namely the Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney show that by using the document level scores as an evaluation unit, the difference between IR systems is more significant compared with utilizing topic scores. Originality/value Utilizing a suitable test collection is a primary prerequisite for IR systems comparative evaluation. However, in addition to reusable test collections, having an accurate statistical testing is a necessity for these evaluations. The findings of this study will assist IR researchers to evaluate their retrieval systems and algorithms more accurately.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.4, S.408-421
  3. Angelini, M.; Fazzini, V.; Ferro, N.; Santucci, G.; Silvello, G.: CLAIRE: A combinatorial visual analytics system for information retrieval evaluation (2018) 0.01 
    0.0146081755 = product of:
  0.068171486 = sum of:
    0.032137483 = weight(_text_:wide in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032137483 = score(doc=5049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=5049,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=5049,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 5049, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5049)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval (IR) develops complex systems, constituted of several components, which aim at returning and optimally ranking the most relevant documents in response to user queries. In this context, experimental evaluation plays a central role, since it allows for measuring IR systems effectiveness, increasing the understanding of their functioning, and better directing the efforts for improving them. Current evaluation methodologies are limited by two major factors: (i) IR systems are evaluated as "black boxes", since it is not possible to decompose the contributions of the different components, e.g., stop lists, stemmers, and IR models; (ii) given that it is not possible to predict the effectiveness of an IR system, both academia and industry need to explore huge numbers of systems, originated by large combinatorial compositions of their components, to understand how they perform and how these components interact together. We propose a Combinatorial visuaL Analytics system for Information Retrieval Evaluation (CLAIRE) which allows for exploring and making sense of the performances of a large amount of IR systems, in order to quickly and intuitively grasp which system configurations are preferred, what are the contributions of the different components and how these components interact together. The CLAIRE system is then validated against use cases based on several test collections using a wide set of systems, generated by a combinatorial composition of several off-the-shelf components, representing the most common denominator almost always present in English IR systems. In particular, we validate the findings enabled by CLAIRE with respect to consolidated deep statistical analyses and we show that the CLAIRE system allows the generation of new insights, which were not detectable with traditional approaches.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 54(2018) no.6, S.1077-1100
  4. Schirrmeister, N.-P.; Keil, S.: Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen (2012) 0.01 
    0.010234192 = product of:
  0.071639344 = sum of:
    0.01804893 = weight(_text_:information in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01804893 = score(doc=3097,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 3097, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3097)
    0.05359041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05359041 = score(doc=3097,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.59785134 = fieldWeight in 3097, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3097)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Das Projekt "Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen" (AIIRE) bietet eine Softwareinfrastruktur zur Unterstützung von Information Retrieval-Evaluationen (IR-Evaluationen). Die Infrastruktur basiert auf einem Tool-Kit, das bei GESIS im Rahmen des DFG-Projekts IRM entwickelt wurde. Ziel ist es, ein System zu bieten, das zur Forschung und Lehre am Fachbereich Media für IR-Evaluationen genutzt werden kann. This paper describes some aspects of a project called "Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen" (AIIRE). Its goal is to build a software-infrastructure which supports the evaluation of information retrieval algorithms.
  5. Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011) 0.01 
    0.009692217 = product of:
  0.045230348 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
    0.033494003 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033494003 = score(doc=4197,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4197, 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=4197)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) provides a TREC-like platform for evaluating content-oriented XML retrieval systems. Since 2007, INEX has been using a set of precision-recall based metrics for its ad hoc tasks. The authors investigate the reliability and robustness of these focused retrieval measures, and of the INEX pooling method. They explore four specific questions: How reliable are the metrics when assessments are incomplete, or when query sets are small? What is the minimum pool/query-set size that can be used to reliably evaluate systems? Can the INEX collections be used to fairly evaluate "new" systems that did not participate in the pooling process? And, for a fixed amount of assessment effort, would this effort be better spent in thoroughly judging a few queries, or in judging many queries relatively superficially? The authors' findings validate properties of precision-recall-based metrics observed in document retrieval settings. Early precision measures are found to be more error-prone and less stable under incomplete judgments and small topic-set sizes. They also find that system rankings remain largely unaffected even when assessment effort is substantially (but systematically) reduced, and confirm that the INEX collections remain usable when evaluating nonparticipating systems. Finally, they observe that for a fixed amount of effort, judging shallow pools for many queries is better than judging deep pools for a smaller set of queries. However, when judging only a random sample of a pool, it is better to completely judge fewer topics than to partially judge many topics. This result confirms the effectiveness of pooling methods.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:20:56
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.375-394
  6. Rajagopal, P.; Ravana, S.D.; Koh, Y.S.; Balakrishnan, V.: Evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems using effort-based relevance judgment (2019) 0.01 
    0.00938227 = product of:
  0.04378393 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=5287,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
    0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029957948 = score(doc=5287,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5287, 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=5287)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose The effort in addition to relevance is a major factor for satisfaction and utility of the document to the actual user. The purpose of this paper is to propose a method in generating relevance judgments that incorporate effort without human judges' involvement. Then the study determines the variation in system rankings due to low effort relevance judgment in evaluating retrieval systems at different depth of evaluation. Design/methodology/approach Effort-based relevance judgments are generated using a proposed boxplot approach for simple document features, HTML features and readability features. The boxplot approach is a simple yet repeatable approach in classifying documents' effort while ensuring outlier scores do not skew the grading of the entire set of documents. Findings The retrieval systems evaluation using low effort relevance judgments has a stronger influence on shallow depth of evaluation compared to deeper depth. It is proved that difference in the system rankings is due to low effort documents and not the number of relevant documents. Originality/value Hence, it is crucial to evaluate retrieval systems at shallow depth using low effort relevance judgments.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.1, S.2-17
  7. Bashir, S.; Rauber, A.: On the relationship between query characteristics and IR functions retrieval bias (2011) 0.01 
    0.008436042 = product of:
  0.059052292 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=4628,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
    0.054007463 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054007463 = score(doc=4628,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.60250396 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Bias quantification of retrieval functions with the help of document retrievability scores has recently evolved as an important evaluation measure for recall-oriented retrieval applications. While numerous studies have evaluated retrieval bias of retrieval functions, solid validation of its impact on realistic types of queries is still limited. This is due to the lack of well-accepted criteria for query generation for estimating retrievability. Commonly, random queries are used for approximating documents retrievability due to the prohibitively large query space and time involved in processing all queries. Additionally, a cumulative retrievability score of documents over all queries is used for analyzing retrieval functions (retrieval) bias. However, this approach does not consider the difference between different query characteristics (QCs) and their influence on retrieval functions' bias quantification. This article provides an in-depth study of retrievability over different QCs. It analyzes the correlation of lower/higher retrieval bias with different query characteristics. The presence of strong correlation between retrieval bias and query characteristics in experiments indicates the possibility of determining retrieval bias of retrieval functions without processing an exhaustive query set. Experiments are validated on TREC Chemical Retrieval Track consisting of 1.2 million patent documents.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1515-1532
  8. Borlund, P.: ¬A study of the use of simulated work task situations in interactive information retrieval evaluations : a meta-evaluation (2016) 0.01 
    0.008118262 = product of:
  0.03788522 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=2880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
    0.0069903214 = weight(_text_:information in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0069903214 = score(doc=2880,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
    0.016946774 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016946774 = score(doc=2880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2880, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2880)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report a study of how the test instrument of a simulated work task situation is used in empirical evaluations of interactive information retrieval (IIR) and reported in the research literature. In particular, the author is interested to learn whether the requirements of how to employ simulated work task situations are followed, and whether these requirements call for further highlighting and refinement. Design/methodology/approach - In order to study how simulated work task situations are used, the research literature in question is identified. This is done partly via citation analysis by use of Web of Science®, and partly by systematic search of online repositories. On this basis, 67 individual publications were identified and they constitute the sample of analysis. Findings - The analysis reveals a need for clarifications of how to use simulated work task situations in IIR evaluations. In particular, with respect to the design and creation of realistic simulated work task situations. There is a lack of tailoring of the simulated work task situations to the test participants. Likewise, the requirement to include the test participants' personal information needs is neglected. Further, there is a need to add and emphasise a requirement to depict the used simulated work task situations when reporting the IIR studies. Research limitations/implications - Insight about the use of simulated work task situations has implications for test design of IIR studies and hence the knowledge base generated on the basis of such studies. Originality/value - Simulated work task situations are widely used in IIR studies, and the present study is the first comprehensive study of the intended and unintended use of this test instrument since its introduction in the late 1990's. The paper addresses the need to carefully design and tailor simulated work task situations to suit the test participants in order to obtain the intended authentic and realistic IIR under study.
  9. Järvelin, K.: Evaluation (2011) 0.01 
    0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. Eds.: Ruthven, I. u. D. Kelly
  10. Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014) 0.01 
    0.0075020255 = product of:
  0.03500945 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=1786,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=1786,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Purpose - One core element of interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments is the assignment of search tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical review of current practice in developing those search tasks to test, observe or control task complexity and difficulty. Design/methodology/approach - Over 100 prior studies of IIR were examined in terms of how each defined task complexity and/or difficulty (or related concepts) and subsequently interpreted those concepts in the development of the assigned search tasks. Findings - Search task complexity is found to include three dimensions: multiplicity of subtasks or steps, multiplicity of facets, and indeterminability. Search task difficulty is based on an interaction between the search task and the attributes of the searcher or the attributes of the search situation. The paper highlights the anomalies in our use of these two concepts, concluding with suggestions for future methodological research related to search task complexity and difficulty. Originality/value - By analyzing and synthesizing current practices, this paper provides guidance for future experiments in IIR that involve these two constructs.
    Date
    6. 4.2015 19:31:22
  11. Al-Maskari, A.; Sanderson, M.: ¬A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval (2010) 0.01 
    0.0072068013 = product of:
  0.050447606 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=3447,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
    0.036322083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036322083 = score(doc=3447,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The authors investigate factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval. It is evident from this study that user satisfaction is a subjective variable, which can be influenced by several factors such as system effectiveness, user effectiveness, user effort, and user characteristics and expectations. Therefore, information retrieval evaluators should consider all these factors in obtaining user satisfaction and in using it as a criterion of system effectiveness. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the relationship between user satisfaction and system effectiveness; this study has substantiated these findings and supports using user satisfaction as a criterion of system effectiveness.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.859-868
  12. Mandl, T.: Evaluierung im Information Retrieval : die Hildesheimer Antwort auf aktuelle Herausforderungen der globalisierten Informationsgesellschaft (2010) 0.01 
    0.00683917 = product of:
  0.04787419 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=4011,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.033893548 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033893548 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Die Forschung zur Evaluierung von Information Retrieval Systemen hat in den letzten Jahren neue Richtungen eingeschlagen und interessante Ergebnisse erzielt. Während früher primär die Überlegenheit einzelner Verfahren in heterogenen Anwendungsszenarien im Fokus stand, gerät zunehmend die Validität der Evaluierungsmethodik ins Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit. Dieser Artikel fasst die aktuelle Forschung zu innovativen Evaluierungsmaßen und zur Zuverlässigkeit des so genannten Cranfield-Paradigmas zusammen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 61(2010) H.6/7, S.341-348
  13. Lu, K.; Kipp, M.E.I.: Understanding the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different retrieval environments : an experimental study on medical collections (2014) 0.01 
    0.00638221 = product of:
  0.04467547 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=1215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
    0.03963064 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03963064 = score(doc=1215,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.442117 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This study investigates the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different environments through controlled experiments. Three test collections were built. The first collection tests the impact of tags on retrieval performance when only the title and abstract are available (the abstract environment). The second tests the impact of tags when the full text is available (the full-text environment). The third compares the retrieval effectiveness of tags and author keywords in the abstract environment. In addition, both single-word queries and phrase queries are tested to understand the impact of different query types. Our findings suggest that including tags and author keywords in indexes can enhance recall but may improve or worsen average precision depending on retrieval environments and query types. Indexing tags and author keywords for searching using phrase queries in the abstract environment showed improved average precision, whereas indexing tags for searching using single-word queries in the full-text environment led to a significant drop in average precision. The comparison between tags and author keywords in the abstract environment indicates that they have comparable impact on average precision, but author keywords are more advantageous in enhancing recall. The findings from this study provide useful implications for designing retrieval systems that incorporate tags and author keywords.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.483-500
  14. Womser-Hacker, C.: Evaluierung im Information Retrieval (2013) 0.01 
    0.0063181263 = product of:
  0.04422688 = sum of:
    0.014268933 = weight(_text_:information in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014268933 = score(doc=728,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
    0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029957948 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried
  15. Dang, E.K.F.; Luk, R.W.P.; Allan, J.: ¬A context-dependent relevance model (2016) 0.01 
    0.00604503 = product of:
  0.042315207 = sum of:
    0.012357258 = weight(_text_:information in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012357258 = score(doc=2778,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 2778, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2778)
    0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029957948 = score(doc=2778,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2778, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2778)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Numerous past studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the relevance model (RM) for information retrieval (IR). This approach enables relevance or pseudo-relevance feedback to be incorporated within the language modeling framework of IR. In the traditional RM, the feedback information is used to improve the estimate of the query language model. In this article, we introduce an extension of RM in the setting of relevance feedback. Our method provides an additional way to incorporate feedback via the improvement of the document language models. Specifically, we make use of the context information of known relevant and nonrelevant documents to obtain weighted counts of query terms for estimating the document language models. The context information is based on the words (unigrams or bigrams) appearing within a text window centered on query terms. Experiments on several Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) collections show that our context-dependent relevance model can improve retrieval performance over the baseline RM. Together with previous studies within the BM25 framework, our current study demonstrates that the effectiveness of our method for using context information in IR is quite general and not limited to any specific retrieval model.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.582-593
  16. Colace, F.; Santo, M. de; Greco, L.; Napoletano, P.: Improving relevance feedback-based query expansion by the use of a weighted word pairs approach (2015) 0.01 
    0.00531243 = product of:
  0.03718701 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.031133216 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031133216 = score(doc=2263,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    In this article, the use of a new term extraction method for query expansion (QE) in text retrieval is investigated. The new method expands the initial query with a structured representation made of weighted word pairs (WWP) extracted from a set of training documents (relevance feedback). Standard text retrieval systems can handle a WWP structure through custom Boolean weighted models. We experimented with both the explicit and pseudorelevance feedback schemas and compared the proposed term extraction method with others in the literature, such as KLD and RM3. Evaluations have been conducted on a number of test collections (Text REtrivel Conference [TREC]-6, -7, -8, -9, and -10). Results demonstrated that the QE method based on this new structure outperforms the baseline.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2223-2234
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  17. White, H.D.: Relevance theory and distributions of judgments in document retrieval (2017) 0.01 
    0.0052989167 = product of:
  0.037092414 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=5099,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
    0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029957948 = score(doc=5099,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This article extends relevance theory (RT) from linguistic pragmatics into information retrieval. Using more than 50 retrieval experiments from the literature as examples, it applies RT to explain the frequency distributions of documents on relevance scales with three or more points. The scale points, which judges in experiments must consider in addition to queries and documents, are communications from researchers. In RT, the relevance of a communication varies directly with its cognitive effects and inversely with the effort of processing it. Researchers define and/or label the scale points to measure the cognitive effects of documents on judges. However, they apparently assume that all scale points as presented are equally easy for judges to process. Yet the notion that points cost variable effort explains fairly well the frequency distributions of judgments across them. By hypothesis, points that cost more effort are chosen by judges less frequently. Effort varies with the vagueness or strictness of scale-point labels and definitions. It is shown that vague scales tend to produce U- or V-shaped distributions, while strict scales tend to produce right-skewed distributions. These results reinforce the paper's more general argument that RT clarifies the concept of relevance in the dialogues of retrieval evaluation.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 53(2017) no.5, S.1080-1102
  18. Vechtomova, O.: Facet-based opinion retrieval from blogs (2010) 0.01 
    0.00524566 = product of:
  0.036719617 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=4225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    The paper presents methods of retrieving blog posts containing opinions about an entity expressed in the query. The methods use a lexicon of subjective words and phrases compiled from manually and automatically developed resources. One of the methods uses the Kullback-Leibler divergence to weight subjective words occurring near query terms in documents, another uses proximity between the occurrences of query terms and subjective words in documents, and the third combines both factors. Methods of structuring queries into facets, facet expansion using Wikipedia, and a facet-based retrieval are also investigated in this work. The methods were evaluated using the TREC 2007 and 2008 Blog track topics, and proved to be highly effective.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.71-88
  19. Becks, D.; Mandl, T.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Spezielle Anforderungen bei der Evaluierung von Patent-Retrieval-Systemen (2010) 0.01 
    0.00524566 = product of:
  0.036719617 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
    0.029656855 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029656855 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Innerhalb der informationswissenschaftlich geprägten Fachinformation nimmt die Patentdomäne eine gewisse Sonderstellung ein, da sie über eine Reihe von Besonderheiten verfügt, die es notwendig machen, die klassischen Methoden der Bewertung zu überarbeiten bzw. zu adaptieren. Dies belegen unter anderem die Ergebnisse des Intellectual Property Track, der seit 2009 im Rahmen der Evaluierungskampagne CLEF stattfindet. Der vorliegende Artikel beschreibt die innerhalb des zuvor genannten Track erzielten Ergebnisse. Darüber hinaus werden die Konsequenzen für die Evaluierung von Patent-Retrieval-Systemen herausgearbeitet.
    Source
    Information und Wissen: global, sozial und frei? Proceedings des 12. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2011) ; Hildesheim, 9. - 11. März 2011. Hrsg.: J. Griesbaum, T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker
  20. Tamine, L.; Chouquet, C.; Palmer, T.: Analysis of biomedical and health queries : lessons learned from TREC and CLEF evaluation benchmarks (2015) 0.01 
    0.005147715 = product of:
  0.036034003 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=2341,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.025944345 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025944345 = score(doc=2341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    A large body of research work examined, from both the query side and the user behavior side, the characteristics of medical- and health-related searches. One of the core issues in medical information retrieval (IR) is diversity of tasks that lead to diversity of categories of information needs and queries. From the evaluation perspective, another related and challenging issue is the limited availability of appropriate test collections allowing the experimental validation of medically task oriented IR techniques and systems. In this paper, we explore the peculiarities of TREC and CLEF medically oriented tasks and queries through the analysis of the differences and the similarities between queries across tasks, with respect to length, specificity, and clarity features and then study their effect on retrieval performance. We show that, even for expert oriented queries, language specificity level varies significantly across tasks as well as search difficulty. Additional findings highlight that query clarity factors are task dependent and that query terms specificity based on domain-specific terminology resources is not significantly linked to term rareness in the document collection. The lessons learned from our study could serve as starting points for the design of future task-based medical information retrieval frameworks.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2626-2642

Authors

Languages

  • e 32
  • d 7

Themes