Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Munkelt, J.: Erstellung einer DNB-Retrieval-Testkollektion (2018) 0.03 
    0.027426437 = product of:
  0.11754187 = sum of:
    0.020072797 = weight(_text_:und in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020072797 = score(doc=4310,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.004365201 = weight(_text_:in in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004365201 = score(doc=4310,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
    0.020072797 = weight(_text_:und in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020072797 = score(doc=4310,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.023686372 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023686372 = score(doc=4310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29142573 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
    0.023686372 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023686372 = score(doc=4310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29142573 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
    0.023686372 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023686372 = score(doc=4310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29142573 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 4310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=4310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4310)
  0.23333333 = coord(7/30)
    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
    Pages
    II, 79 S
  2. Womser-Hacker, C.: Evaluierung im Information Retrieval (2013) 0.01 
    0.014782972 = product of:
  0.08869783 = sum of:
    0.016555762 = weight(_text_:und in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016555762 = score(doc=728,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.048359692 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048359692 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
    0.016555762 = weight(_text_:und in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016555762 = score(doc=728,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0028170836 = score(doc=728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=728)
  0.16666667 = coord(5/30)
    Pages
    S.396-410
    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
  3. Günther, M.: Vermitteln Suchmaschinen vollständige Bilder aktueller Themen? : Untersuchung der Gewichtung inhaltlicher Aspekte von Suchmaschinenergebnissen in Deutschland und den USA (2016) 0.01 
    0.012034497 = product of:
  0.07220698 = sum of:
    0.02110454 = weight(_text_:und in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02110454 = score(doc=3068,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.024179846 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024179846 = score(doc=3068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=3068,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
    0.02110454 = weight(_text_:und in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02110454 = score(doc=3068,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=3068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
  0.16666667 = coord(5/30)
    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. Becks, D.; Mandl, T.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Spezielle Anforderungen bei der Evaluierung von Patent-Retrieval-Systemen (2010) 0.01 
    0.009736491 = product of:
  0.073023684 = sum of:
    0.011589034 = weight(_text_:und in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011589034 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.047873653 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047873653 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09716552 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.011589034 = weight(_text_:und in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011589034 = score(doc=4667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 4667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=4667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4667)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Pages
    S.197-208
    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
  5. Reichert, S.; Mayr, P.: Untersuchung von Relevanzeigenschaften in einem kontrollierten Eyetracking-Experiment (2012) 0.01 
    0.009040197 = product of:
  0.054241184 = sum of:
    0.018583799 = weight(_text_:und in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018583799 = score(doc=328,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005915991 = score(doc=328,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
    0.018583799 = weight(_text_:und in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018583799 = score(doc=328,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.002390375 = weight(_text_:s in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002390375 = score(doc=328,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
    0.008767224 = product of:
      0.017534448 = sum of:
        0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017534448 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(5/30)
    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
  6. Geist, K.: Qualität und Relevanz von bildungsbezogenen Suchergebnissen bei der Suche im Web (2012) 0.01 
    0.0056799273 = product of:
  0.04259945 = sum of:
    0.018583799 = weight(_text_:und in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018583799 = score(doc=570,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.003741601 = weight(_text_:in in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003741601 = score(doc=570,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
    0.018583799 = weight(_text_:und in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018583799 = score(doc=570,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    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
  7. Mandl, T.: Evaluierung im Information Retrieval : die Hildesheimer Antwort auf aktuelle Herausforderungen der globalisierten Informationsgesellschaft (2010) 0.01 
    0.0052913344 = product of:
  0.039685007 = sum of:
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=4011,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.004988801 = weight(_text_:in in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004988801 = score(doc=4011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=4011,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    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
  8. Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014) 0.00 
    0.0028300448 = product of:
  0.021225335 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=1786,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    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.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Festschrift in honour of Nigel Ford
    Date
    6. 4.2015 19:31:22
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.6, S.1118-1140
  9. Schirrmeister, N.-P.; Keil, S.: Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen (2012) 0.00 
    0.0020984374 = product of:
  0.020984374 = sum of:
    0.009365354 = weight(_text_:und in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009365354 = score(doc=3097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.009365354 = weight(_text_:und in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009365354 = score(doc=3097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = 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)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=3097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 3097, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3097)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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.
  10. Schultz Jr., W.N.; Braddy, L.: ¬A librarian-centered study of perceptions of subject terms and controlled vocabulary (2017) 0.00 
    0.0016102897 = product of:
  0.016102897 = sum of:
    0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053462577 = score(doc=5156,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
    0.008784681 = product of:
      0.026354041 = sum of:
        0.026354041 = weight(_text_:l in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026354041 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Controlled vocabulary and subject headings in OPAC records have proven to be useful in improving search results. The authors used a survey to gather information about librarian opinions and professional use of controlled vocabulary. Data from a range of backgrounds and expertise were examined, including academic and public libraries, and technical services as well as public services professionals. Responses overall demonstrated positive opinions of the value of controlled vocabulary, including in reference interactions as well as during bibliographic instruction sessions. Results are also examined based upon factors such as age and type of librarian.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.7/8, S.456-466
  11. Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011) 0.00 
    0.0014547808 = product of:
  0.014547808 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=4540,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 67(2011) no.2, S.264-278
  12. 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) 0.00 
    0.0014511398 = product of:
  0.014511398 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=2263,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.007529726 = product of:
      0.022589177 = sum of:
        0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022589177 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  13. Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011) 0.00 
    0.0014227992 = product of:
  0.014227992 = sum of:
    0.004929992 = weight(_text_:in in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004929992 = score(doc=4197,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
    0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.001991979 = score(doc=4197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  14. 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 
    0.0014115097 = product of:
  0.014115097 = sum of:
    0.0054005357 = weight(_text_:in in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054005357 = score(doc=5287,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  15. 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 
    0.0012533319 = product of:
  0.012533318 = sum of:
    0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038187557 = score(doc=2587,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  16. Tamine, L.; Chouquet, C.; Palmer, T.: Analysis of biomedical and health queries : lessons learned from TREC and CLEF evaluation benchmarks (2015) 0.00 
    0.001150207 = product of:
  0.011502069 = sum of:
    0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038187557 = score(doc=2341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  17. Vakkari, P.; Huuskonen, S.: Search effort degrades search output but improves task outcome (2012) 0.00 
    5.976028E-4 = product of:
  0.008964041 = sum of:
    0.006972062 = weight(_text_:in in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006972062 = score(doc=46,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
    0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.001991979 = score(doc=46,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    We analyzed how effort in searching is associated with search output and task outcome. In a field study, we examined how students' search effort for an assigned learning task was associated with precision and relative recall, and how this was associated to the quality of learning outcome. The study subjects were 41 medical students writing essays for a class in medicine. Searching in Medline was part of their assignment. The data comprised students' search logs in Medline, their assessment of the usefulness of references retrieved, a questionnaire concerning the search process, and evaluation scores of the essays given by the teachers. Pearson correlation was calculated for answering the research questions. Finally, a path model for predicting task outcome was built. We found that effort in the search process degraded precision but improved task outcome. There were two major mechanisms reducing precision while enhancing task outcome. Effort in expanding Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms within search sessions and effort in assessing and exploring documents in the result list between the sessions degraded precision, but led to better task outcome. Thus, human effort compensated bad retrieval results on the way to good task outcome. Findings suggest that traditional effectiveness measures in information retrieval should be complemented with evaluation measures for search process and outcome.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.657-670
  18. 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) 0.00 
    5.58707E-4 = product of:
  0.008380604 = sum of:
    0.006972062 = weight(_text_:in in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006972062 = score(doc=1215,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=1215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1215)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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
  19. Al-Maskari, A.; Sanderson, M.: ¬A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval (2010) 0.00 
    5.43019E-4 = product of:
  0.008145284 = sum of:
    0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061733257 = score(doc=3447,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 3447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=3447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3447)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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
  20. Vechtomova, O.: Facet-based opinion retrieval from blogs (2010) 0.00 
    5.43019E-4 = product of:
  0.008145284 = sum of:
    0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061733257 = score(doc=4225,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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

Authors

Languages

  • e 35
  • d 7

Themes