Search (130 results, page 2 of 7)

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=365,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=922,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 2726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=2726,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2726, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A real case study is shown, explaining in a timeline the whole process of design, development and evaluation of a search engine used as a navigational help tool for end users and clients an a content website, e-commerce driven. The nature of the website is a community website, which will determine the core design of the information service. This study will involve several steps, such as information recovery system analysis, comparative analysis of other commercial search engines, service design, functionalities and scope; software selection, design of the project, project management, future service administration and conclusions.

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 3830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=3830,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3830, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 5086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=5086,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5086, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 5091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=5091,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5091, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 2444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=2444,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2444, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Traditional Cranfield test collections represent an abstraction of a retrieval task that Sparck Jones calls the "core competency" of retrieval: a task that is necessary, but not sufficient, for user retrieval tasks. The abstraction facilitates research by controlling for (some) sources of variability, thus increasing the power of experiments that compare system effectiveness while reducing their cost. However, even within the highly-abstracted case of the Cranfield paradigm, meta-analysis demonstrates that the user/topic effect is greater than the system effect, so experiments must include a relatively large number of topics to distinguish systems' effectiveness. The evidence further suggests that changing the abstraction slightly to include just a bit more characterization of the user will result in a dramatic loss of power or increase in cost of retrieval experiments. Defining a new, feasible abstraction for supporting adaptive IR research will require winnowing the list of all possible factors that can affect retrieval behavior to a minimum number of essential factors.

Type

a

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 2060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=2060,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2060, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2060)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information retrieval involves finding some desired information in a store of information or a database. In this paper, Co-word analysis will be used to achieve a ranking of a selected sample of FA terms. Based on this ranking a better arranging of search results can be achieved. Experimental results achieved using 41 MB of data (7660 documents) in the field of sports. The corpus was collected from CNN newspaper, sports field. This corpus was chosen to be distributed over 11 sub-fields of the field sports from the experimental results, the average precision increased by 18.3% after applying the proposed arranging scheme depending on the absolute frequency to count the terms weights, and the average precision increased by 17.2% after applying the proposed arranging scheme depending on a formula based on "TF*IDF" to count the terms weights.

Type

a

0.0026742492 = product of:
  0.0053484985 = sum of:
    0.0053484985 = product of:
      0.010696997 = sum of:
        0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010696997 = score(doc=3250,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.

Type

a

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=4996,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 4996, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4996)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present the results of a study of user's perception of relevance of documents. The aim is to study experimentally how users' perception varies depending on the form that retrieved documents are presented. Documents retrieved in response to a query are presented to users in a variety of ways, from full text to a machine spoken query-biased automatically-generated summary, and the difference in users' perception of relevance is studied. The experimental results suggest that the effectiveness of advanced multimedia Information Retrieval applications may be affected by the low level of users' perception of relevance of retrieved documents

Type

a

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=191,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although many different visual information retrieval systems have been proposed, few have been tested, and where testing has been performed, results were often inconclusive. Further, there is very little evidence of benchmarking systems against a common standard. An approach for testing novel interfaces is proposed that uses bottom-up, stepwise testing to allow evaluation of a visualization, itself, rather than restricting evaluation to the system instantiating it. This approach not only makes it easier to control variables, but the tests are also easier to perform. The methodology will be presented through a case study, where a new visualization technique is compared to more traditional ways of presenting data

Type

a

0.0026202186 = product of:
  0.005240437 = sum of:
    0.005240437 = product of:
      0.010480874 = sum of:
        0.010480874 = weight(_text_:a in 6519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010480874 = score(doc=6519,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 6519, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6519)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Relevance has been a difficult concept to define, let alone measure. In this paper, a simple operational definition of relevance is proposed for a Web-based library catalog: whether or not during a search session the user saves, prints, mails, or downloads a citation. If one of those actions is performed, the session is considered relevant to the user. An analysis is presented illustrating the advantages and disadvantages of this definition. With this definition and good transaction logging, it is possible to ascertain the relevance of a session. This was done for 905,970 sessions conducted with the University of California's Melvyl online catalog. Next, a methodology was developed to try to predict the relevance of a session. A number of variables were defined that characterize a session, none of which used any demographic information about the user. The values of the variables were computed for the sessions. Principal components analysis was used to extract a new set of variables out of the original set. A stratified random sampling technique was used to form ten strata such that each new strata of 90,570 sessions contained the same proportion of relevant to nonrelevant sessions. Logistic regression was used to ascertain the regression coefficients for nine of the ten strata. Then, the coefficients were used to predict the relevance of the sessions in the missing strata. Overall, 17.85% of the sessions were determined to be relevant. The predicted number of relevant sessions for all ten strata was 11 %, a 6.85% difference. The authors believe that the methodology can be further refined and the prediction improved. This methodology could also have significant application in improving user searching and also in predicting electronic commerce buying decisions without the use of personal demographic data

Type

a

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=5154,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Lopez-Pujalte and Guerrero-Bote test a relevance feedback genetic algorithm while varying its order based fitness functions and generating a function based upon the Ide dec-hi method as a base line. Using the non-zero weighted term types assigned to the query, and to the initially retrieved set of documents, as genes, a chromosome of equal length is created for each. The algorithm is provided with the chromosomes for judged relevant documents, for judged irrelevant documents, and for the irrelevant documents with their terms negated. The algorithm uses random selection of all possible genes, but gives greater likelihood to those with higher fitness values. When the fittest chromosome of a previous population is eliminated it is restored while the least fittest of the new population is eliminated in its stead. A crossover probability of .8 and a mutation probability of .2 were used with 20 generations. Three fitness functions were utilized; the Horng and Yeh function which takes into account the position of relevant documents, and two new functions, one based on accumulating the cosine similarity for retrieved documents, the other on stored fixed-recall-interval precessions. The Cranfield collection was used with the first 15 documents retrieved from 33 queries chosen to have at least 3 relevant documents in the first 15 and at least 5 relevant documents not initially retrieved. Precision was calculated at fixed recall levels using the residual collection method which removes viewed documents. One of the three functions improved the original retrieval by127 percent, while the Ide dec-hi method provided a 120 percent improvement.

Type

a

0.0025370158 = product of:
  0.0050740317 = sum of:
    0.0050740317 = product of:
      0.010148063 = sum of:
        0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 5601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010148063 = score(doc=5601,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 5601, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To present a method for creating a comparable document collection from two document collections in different languages. Design/methodology/approach - The best query keys were extracted from a Finnish source collection (articles of the newspaper Aamulehti) with the relative average term frequency formula. The keys were translated into English with a dictionary-based query translation program. The resulting lists of words were used as queries that were run against the target collection (Los Angeles Times articles) with the nearest neighbor method. The documents were aligned with unrestricted and date-restricted alignment schemes, which were also combined. Findings - The combined alignment scheme was found the best, when the relatedness of the document pairs was assessed with a five-degree relevance scale. Of the 400 document pairs, roughly 40 percent were highly or fairly related and 75 percent included at least lexical similarity. Research limitations/implications - The number of alignment pairs was small due to the short common time period of the two collections, and their geographical (and thus, topical) remoteness. In future, our aim is to build larger comparable corpora in various languages and use them as source of translation knowledge for the purposes of cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). Practical implications - Readily available parallel corpora are scarce. With this method, two unrelated document collections can relatively easily be aligned to create a CLIR resource. Originality/value - The method can be applied to weakly linked collections and morphologically complex languages, such as Finnish.

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=4605,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4605, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study sought to investigate the effects of cognitive style (field dependent and field independent) and on-line database search experience (novice and experienced) on the WWW search performance of undergraduate college students (n=48). It also attempted to find user factors that could be used to predict search efficiency. search performance, the dependent variable was defined in 2 ways: (1) time required for retrieving a relevant information item, and (2) the number of nodes traversed for retrieving a relevant information item. the search tasks required were carried out on a University Web site, and included a factual task and a topical search task of interest to the participant. Results indicated that while cognitive style (FD/FI) significantly influenced the search performance of novice searchers, the influence was greatly reduced in those searchers who had on-line database search experience. Based on the findings, suggestions for possible changes to the design of the current Web interface and to user training programs are provided

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=716,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of a scientifically sounded approach to search engine evaluation. Nowadays there is a flourishing literature which describes various attempts at conducting such evaluation by following all sort of approaches, but very often only the final results are published with little, if any, information about the methodology and the procedures adopted. These various experiments have been critically investigated and catalogued according to their scientific foundation by Bell [1] in the attempt to provide a valuable framework for future studies in this area. This paper reconsiders some of Bell's ideas in the light of the crisis of classic evaluation techniques for information retrieval and tries to envisage some form of collaboration between the IR and web communities in order to design a better and more consistent platform for the evaluation of tools for interactive information retrieval.

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=4118,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 5048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=5048,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5048, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we introduce a new information system evaluation method and report on its application to a collaborative information seeking system, AntWorld. The key innovation of the new method is to use precisely the same group of users who work with the system as judges, a system we call Cross-Evaluation. In the new method, we also propose to assess the system at the level of task completion. The obvious potential limitation of this method is that individuals may be inclined to think more highly of the materials that they themselves have found and are almost certain to think more highly of their own work product than they do of the products built by others. The keys to neutralizing this problem are careful design and a corresponding analytical model based on analysis of variance. We model the several measures of task completion with a linear model of five effects, describing the users who interact with the system, the system used to finish the task, the task itself, the behavior of individuals as judges, and the selfjudgment bias. Our analytical method successfully isolates the effect of each variable. This approach provides a successful model to make concrete the "threerealities" paradigm, which calls for "real tasks," "real users," and "real systems."

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=2094,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Some of the most popular measures to evaluate information filtering systems are usually independent of the users because they are based in relevance judgments obtained from experts. On the other hand, the user-centred evaluation allows showing the different impressions that the users have perceived about the system running. This work is focused on discussing the problem of user-centred versus system-centred evaluation of a Web content personalization system where the personalization is based on a user model that stores long term (section, categories and keywords) and short term interests (adapted from user provided feedback). The user-centred evaluation is based on questionnaires filled in by the users before and after using the system and the system-centred evaluation is based on the comparison between ranking of documents, obtained from the application of a multi-tier selection process, and binary relevance judgments collected previously from real users. The user-centred and system-centred evaluations performed with 106 users during 14 working days have provided valuable data concerning the behaviour of the users with respect to issues such as document relevance or the relative importance attributed to different ways of personalization. The results obtained shows general satisfaction on both the personalization processes (selection, adaptation and presentation) and the system as a whole.

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a