Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Womser-Hacker, C.: Evaluierung im Information Retrieval (2013) 0.02 
    0.018837553 = product of:
  0.09418776 = sum of:
    0.022241939 = weight(_text_:und in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022241939 = score(doc=728,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
    0.064969115 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064969115 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.49770427 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
    0.0069766995 = product of:
      0.013953399 = sum of:
        0.013953399 = weight(_text_:information in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013953399 = score(doc=728,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    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
  2. Becks, D.; Mandl, T.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Spezielle Anforderungen bei der Evaluierung von Patent-Retrieval-Systemen (2010) 0.02 
    0.016667759 = product of:
  0.08333879 = sum of:
    0.015569357 = weight(_text_:und in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015569357 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
    0.06431614 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06431614 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.4927021 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
    0.00345329 = product of:
      0.00690658 = sum of:
        0.00690658 = weight(_text_:information in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00690658 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Series
    Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft; Bd.58
    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
  3. Günther, M.: Vermitteln Suchmaschinen vollständige Bilder aktueller Themen? : Untersuchung der Gewichtung inhaltlicher Aspekte von Suchmaschinenergebnissen in Deutschland und den USA (2016) 0.01 
    0.012660843 = product of:
  0.063304216 = sum of:
    0.02835302 = weight(_text_:und in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02835302 = score(doc=3068,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.441457 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=3068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=3068,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3068, 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=3068)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Abstract
    Zielsetzung - Vor dem Hintergrund von Suchmaschinenverzerrungen sollte herausgefunden werden, ob sich die von Google und Bing vermittelten Bilder aktueller internationaler Themen in Deutschland und den USA hinsichtlich (1) Vollständigkeit, (2) Abdeckung und (3) Gewichtung der jeweiligen inhaltlichen Aspekte unterscheiden. Forschungsmethoden - Für die empirische Untersuchung wurde eine Methode aus Ansätzen der empirischen Sozialwissenschaften (Inhaltsanalyse) und der Informationswissenschaft (Retrievaltests) entwickelt und angewandt. Ergebnisse - Es zeigte sich, dass Google und Bing in Deutschland und den USA (1) keine vollständigen Bilder aktueller internationaler Themen vermitteln, dass sie (2) auf den ersten Trefferpositionen nicht die drei wichtigsten inhaltlichen Aspekte abdecken, und dass es (3) bei der Gewichtung der inhaltlichen Aspekte keine signifikanten Unterschiede gibt. Allerdings erfahren diese Ergebnisse Einschränkungen durch die Methodik und die Auswertung der empirischen Untersuchung. Schlussfolgerungen - Es scheinen tatsächlich inhaltliche Suchmaschinenverzerrungen vorzuliegen - diese könnten Auswirkungen auf die Meinungsbildung der Suchmaschinennutzer haben. Trotz großem Aufwand bei manueller, und qualitativ schlechteren Ergebnissen bei automatischer Untersuchung sollte dieses Thema weiter erforscht werden.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://yis.univie.ac.at/index.php/yis/article/view/1355. Diesem Beitrag liegt folgende Abschlussarbeit zugrunde: Günther, Markus: Welches Weltbild vermitteln Suchmaschinen? Untersuchung der Gewichtung inhaltlicher Aspekte von Google- und Bing-Ergebnissen in Deutschland und den USA zu aktuellen internationalen Themen . Masterarbeit (M.A.), Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg, 2015. Volltext: http://edoc.sub.uni-hamburg.de/haw/volltexte/2016/332.
    Source
    Young information scientists. 1(2016), S.13-29
  4. Reichert, S.; Mayr, P.: Untersuchung von Relevanzeigenschaften in einem kontrollierten Eyetracking-Experiment (2012) 0.01 
    0.0075860415 = product of:
  0.05689531 = sum of:
    0.024966514 = weight(_text_:und in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024966514 = score(doc=328,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.38872904 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
    0.031928796 = sum of:
      0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0083720395 = score(doc=328,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 328, 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=328)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel wird ein Eyetracking-Experiment beschrieben, bei dem untersucht wurde, wann und auf Basis welcher Informationen Relevanzentscheidungen bei der themenbezogenen Dokumentenbewertung fallen und welche Faktoren auf die Relevanzentscheidung einwirken. Nach einer kurzen Einführung werden relevante Studien aufgeführt, in denen Eyetracking als Untersuchungsmethode für Interaktionsverhalten mit Ergebnislisten (Information Seeking Behavior) verwendet wurde. Nutzerverhalten wird hierbei vor allem durch unterschiedliche Aufgaben-Typen, dargestellte Informationen und durch das Ranking eines Ergebnisses beeinflusst. Durch EyetrackingUntersuchungen lassen sich Nutzer außerdem in verschiedene Klassen von Bewertungs- und Lesetypen einordnen. Diese Informationen können als implizites Feedback genutzt werden, um so die Suche zu personalisieren und um die Relevanz von Suchergebnissen ohne aktives Zutun des Users zu erhöhen. In einem explorativen Eyetracking-Experiment mit 12 Studenten der Hochschule Darmstadt werden anhand der Länge der Gesamtbewertung, Anzahl der Fixationen, Anzahl der besuchten Metadatenelemente und Länge des Scanpfades zwei typische Bewertungstypen identifiziert. Das Metadatenfeld Abstract wird im Experiment zuverlässig als wichtigste Dokumenteigenschaft für die Zuordnung von Relevanz ermittelt.
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:25:54
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.145-156
  5. Mandl, T.: Evaluierung im Information Retrieval : die Hildesheimer Antwort auf aktuelle Herausforderungen der globalisierten Informationsgesellschaft (2010) 0.00 
    0.0038171073 = product of:
  0.028628303 = sum of:
    0.02179256 = weight(_text_:und in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02179256 = score(doc=4011,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.006835742 = product of:
      0.013671484 = sum of:
        0.013671484 = weight(_text_:information in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013671484 = score(doc=4011,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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
  6. Schirrmeister, N.-P.; Keil, S.: Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen (2012) 0.00 
    0.002854246 = product of:
  0.021406844 = sum of:
    0.012581941 = weight(_text_:und in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012581941 = score(doc=3097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 3097, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3097)
    0.008824904 = product of:
      0.017649809 = sum of:
        0.017649809 = weight(_text_:information in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017649809 = score(doc=3097,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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.
  7. Ravana, S.D.; Taheri, M.S.; Rajagopal, P.: Document-based approach to improve the accuracy of pairwise comparison in evaluating information retrieval systems (2015) 0.00 
    0.0018783542 = product of:
  0.028175311 = sum of:
    0.028175311 = sum of:
      0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008544678 = score(doc=2587,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  8. Munkelt, J.: Erstellung einer DNB-Retrieval-Testkollektion (2018) 0.00 
    0.0017977946 = product of:
  0.026966918 = sum of:
    0.026966918 = weight(_text_:und in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026966918 = score(doc=4310,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Seit Herbst 2017 findet in der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek die Inhaltserschließung bestimmter Medienwerke rein maschinell statt. Die Qualität dieses Verfahrens, das die Prozessorganisation von Bibliotheken maßgeblich prägen kann, wird unter Fachleuten kontrovers diskutiert. Ihre Standpunkte werden zunächst hinreichend erläutert, ehe die Notwendigkeit einer Qualitätsprüfung des Verfahrens und dessen Grundlagen dargelegt werden. Zentraler Bestandteil einer künftigen Prüfung ist eine Testkollektion. Ihre Erstellung und deren Dokumentation steht im Fokus dieser Arbeit. In diesem Zusammenhang werden auch die Entstehungsgeschichte und Anforderungen an gelungene Testkollektionen behandelt. Abschließend wird ein Retrievaltest durchgeführt, der die Einsatzfähigkeit der erarbeiteten Testkollektion belegt. Seine Ergebnisse dienen ausschließlich der Funktionsüberprüfung. Eine Qualitätsbeurteilung maschineller Inhaltserschließung im Speziellen sowie im Allgemeinen findet nicht statt und ist nicht Ziel der Ausarbeitung.
    Content
    Bachelorarbeit, Bibliothekswissenschaften, Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften, Technische Hochschule Köln
    Imprint
    Köln : Technische Hochschule, Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften
  9. Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014) 0.00 
    0.0017738222 = product of:
  0.026607333 = sum of:
    0.026607333 = sum of:
      0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0069766995 = score(doc=1786,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  10. Rajagopal, P.; Ravana, S.D.; Koh, Y.S.; Balakrishnan, V.: Evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems using effort-based relevance judgment (2019) 0.00 
    0.0017738222 = product of:
  0.026607333 = sum of:
    0.026607333 = sum of:
      0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0069766995 = score(doc=5287,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 71(2019) no.1, S.2-17
  11. Geist, K.: Qualität und Relevanz von bildungsbezogenen Suchergebnissen bei der Suche im Web (2012) 0.00 
    0.0016644343 = product of:
  0.024966514 = sum of:
    0.024966514 = weight(_text_:und in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024966514 = score(doc=570,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.38872904 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Websuchmaschinen haben sich sowohl im privaten als auch im professionellen Bereich zu den bedeutsamsten Recherchewerkzeugen der Gegenwart entwickelt. Sie durchsuchen die Weiten des Internets, um verfügbare Dokumente zu erfassen und dem Benutzer auf Anfrage präsentieren zu können. Mit den gefundenen Dokumenten beabsichtigen sie vielfältige Informationsbedürfnisse zu befriedigen. Ihr Erfolg basiert zu einem großen Teil auf der Fähigkeit, relevante Dokumente zu spezifischen Suchanfragen zu liefern. Um verschiedene Systeme miteinander vergleichen zu können, werden daher häufig Relevanzevaluationen durchgeführt. Dieser Artikel beschreibt in Auszügen die Ergebnisse eines Retrievaltests, der Qualität und Relevanz informationsorientierter Suchanfragen zum Thema Bildung untersucht. Studentische Nutzer beurteilten dabei die Suchergebnisse von Google hinsichtlich ihrer Relevanz, Vertrauenswürdigkeit, Verständlichkeit und Aktualität. Die Untersuchung wurde im Rahmen mei­ner Magisterarbeit durchgeführt, die mit dem VFI-Förderungspreis 2011 ausgezeichnet wurde, und war eingebunden in ein Forschungsprojekt an der Universität Hildesheim zu bildungsbezogener Informationssuche im Internet (BISIBS). Ich bedanke mich herzlich bei allen, die an der Entstehung dieser Arbeit beteiligt waren und bei der Preis-Kommission für die Auszeichnung.
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 65(2012) H.2, S.261-276
  12. Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011) 0.00 
    0.0016375937 = product of:
  0.024563905 = sum of:
    0.024563905 = sum of:
      0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049332716 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  13. Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011) 0.00 
    0.0016375937 = product of:
  0.024563905 = sum of:
    0.024563905 = sum of:
      0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049332716 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process. Findings - This study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment. Research limitations/implications - Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments. Practical implications - If multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short-term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions. Originality/value - This study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.
    Date
    12. 7.2011 18:29:22
  14. Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017) 0.00 
    4.6511332E-4 = product of:
  0.0069766995 = sum of:
    0.0069766995 = product of:
      0.013953399 = sum of:
        0.013953399 = weight(_text_:information in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013953399 = score(doc=3700,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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.
  15. Al-Maskari, A.; Sanderson, M.: ¬A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval (2010) 0.00 
    4.604387E-4 = product of:
  0.00690658 = sum of:
    0.00690658 = product of:
      0.01381316 = sum of:
        0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=3447,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  16. Järvelin, K.: Evaluation (2011) 0.00 
    4.604387E-4 = product of:
  0.00690658 = sum of:
    0.00690658 = product of:
      0.01381316 = sum of:
        0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. Eds.: Ruthven, I. u. D. Kelly
  17. Dang, E.K.F.; Luk, R.W.P.; Allan, J.: ¬A context-dependent relevance model (2016) 0.00 
    4.0279995E-4 = product of:
  0.006041999 = sum of:
    0.006041999 = product of:
      0.012083998 = sum of:
        0.012083998 = weight(_text_:information in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012083998 = score(doc=2778,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  18. Tamine, L.; Chouquet, C.; Palmer, T.: Analysis of biomedical and health queries : lessons learned from TREC and CLEF evaluation benchmarks (2015) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=2341,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  19. Angelini, M.; Fazzini, V.; Ferro, N.; Santucci, G.; Silvello, G.: CLAIRE: A combinatorial visual analytics system for information retrieval evaluation (2018) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 5049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=5049,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  20. Leiva-Mederos, A.; Senso, J.A.; Hidalgo-Delgado, Y.; Hipola, P.: Working framework of semantic interoperability for CRIS with heterogeneous data sources (2017) 0.00 
    2.941635E-4 = product of:
  0.004412452 = sum of:
    0.004412452 = product of:
      0.008824904 = sum of:
        0.008824904 = weight(_text_:information in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008824904 = score(doc=3706,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1734784 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose Information from Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) is stored in different formats, in platforms that are not compatible, or even in independent networks. It would be helpful to have a well-defined methodology to allow for management data processing from a single site, so as to take advantage of the capacity to link disperse data found in different systems, platforms, sources and/or formats. Based on functionalities and materials of the VLIR project, the purpose of this paper is to present a model that provides for interoperability by means of semantic alignment techniques and metadata crosswalks, and facilitates the fusion of information stored in diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach After reviewing the state of the art regarding the diverse mechanisms for achieving semantic interoperability, the paper analyzes the following: the specific coverage of the data sets (type of data, thematic coverage and geographic coverage); the technical specifications needed to retrieve and analyze a distribution of the data set (format, protocol, etc.); the conditions of re-utilization (copyright and licenses); and the "dimensions" included in the data set as well as the semantics of these dimensions (the syntax and the taxonomies of reference). The semantic interoperability framework here presented implements semantic alignment and metadata crosswalk to convert information from three different systems (ABCD, Moodle and DSpace) to integrate all the databases in a single RDF file. Findings The paper also includes an evaluation based on the comparison - by means of calculations of recall and precision - of the proposed model and identical consultations made on Open Archives Initiative and SQL, in order to estimate its efficiency. The results have been satisfactory enough, due to the fact that the semantic interoperability facilitates the exact retrieval of information. Originality/value The proposed model enhances management of the syntactic and semantic interoperability of the CRIS system designed. In a real setting of use it achieves very positive results.

Authors

Languages

  • e 32
  • d 7

Themes