Search (133 results, page 2 of 7)

0.009709007 = product of:
  0.06796305 = sum of:
    0.01712272 = weight(_text_:information in 4127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01712272 = score(doc=4127,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 4127, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4127)
    0.050840326 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050840326 = score(doc=4127,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 4127, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4127)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

SIGIR'04: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference an Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Ed.: K. Järvelin, u.a

0.009637499 = product of:
  0.06746249 = sum of:
    0.055354897 = weight(_text_:web in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055354897 = score(doc=817,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.57238775 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=817,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of the paper is to put forward a structured mechanism for web search evaluation. The paper seeks to point to useful scientific research and show how information practitioners can use these methods in evaluation of search on the web for their users. Design/methodology/approach - The paper puts forward an approach which utilizes traditional laboratory-based evaluation measures such as average precision/precision at N documents, augmented with diagnostic measures such as link broken, etc., which are used to show why precision measures are depressed as well as the quality of the search engines crawling mechanism. Findings - The paper shows how to use diagnostic measures in conjunction with precision in order to evaluate web search. Practical implications - The methodology presented in this paper will be useful to any information professional who regularly uses web search as part of their information seeking and needs to evaluate web search services. Originality/value - The paper argues that the use of diagnostic measures is essential in web search, as precision measures on their own do not allow a searcher to understand why search results differ between search engines.

0.008992559 = product of:
  0.062947914 = sum of:
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 5090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=5090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5090, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5090)
    0.050840326 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050840326 = score(doc=5090,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 5090, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5090)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.008845377 = product of:
  0.061917633 = sum of:
    0.019976506 = weight(_text_:information in 4692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019976506 = score(doc=4692,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 4692, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4692)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=4692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4692, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4692)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Journal of information science. 29(2003) no.4, S.239-248

0.008478267 = product of:
  0.059347864 = sum of:
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=3890,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
    0.047932718 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047932718 = score(doc=3890,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This entry summarizes the history, results, and impact of the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), a workshop series designed to support the information retrieval community by building the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of retrieval technology.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.008446382 = product of:
  0.05912467 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=2263,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.046891607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046891607 = score(doc=2263,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Most common effectiveness measures for information retrieval systems are based an the assumptions of binary relevance (either a document is relevant to a given query or it is not) and binary retrieval (either a document is retrieved or it is not). In this article, these assumptions are questioned, and a new measure named ADM (average distance measure) is proposed, discussed from a conceptual point of view, and experimentally validated an Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) data. Both conceptual analysis and experimental evidence demonstrate ADM's adequacy in measuring the effectiveness of information retrieval systems. Some potential problems about precision and recall are also highlighted and discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.530-543

0.00829175 = product of:
  0.05804225 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 2444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=2444,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2444, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2444)
    0.04755677 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04755677 = score(doc=2444,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5305404 = fieldWeight in 2444, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2444)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Adaptive information retrieval"

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.6, S.1879-1885

0.008236345 = product of:
  0.05765441 = sum of:
    0.016143454 = weight(_text_:information in 3801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016143454 = score(doc=3801,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 3801, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3801)
    0.041510954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041510954 = score(doc=3801,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 3801, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3801)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Jean Tague-Sutcliffe was an important figure in information retrieval experimentation. Here, she reviews the history of IR research, and provides a description of the fundamental paradigm of information retrieval experimentation that continues to dominate the field.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.008111998 = product of:
  0.03785599 = sum of:
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=2752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
    0.026795205 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026795205 = score(doc=2752,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29892567 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
    0.0053532133 = product of:
      0.016059639 = sum of:
        0.016059639 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016059639 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

We report data fusion experiments carried out on the four best-performing retrieval models from TREC 5. Three were conceptually/algorithmically very different from one another; one was algorithmically similar to one of the former. The objective of the test was to observe the performance of the 11 logical data fusion combinations compared to the performance of the four individual models and their intermediate fusions when following the principle of polyrepresentation. This principle is based on cognitive IR perspective (Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005) and implies that each retrieval model is regarded as a representation of a unique interpretation of information retrieval (IR). It predicts that only fusions of very different, but equally good, IR models may outperform each constituent as well as their intermediate fusions. Two kinds of experiments were carried out. One tested restricted fusions, which entails that only the inner disjoint overlap documents between fused models are ranked. The second set of experiments was based on traditional data fusion methods. The experiments involved the 30 TREC 5 topics that contain more than 44 relevant documents. In all tests, the Borda and CombSUM scoring methods were used. Performance was measured by precision and recall, with document cutoff values (DCVs) at 100 and 15 documents, respectively. Results show that restricted fusions made of two, three, or four cognitively/algorithmically very different retrieval models perform significantly better than do the individual models at DCV100. At DCV15, however, the results of polyrepresentative fusion were less predictable. The traditional fusion method based on polyrepresentation principles demonstrates a clear picture of performance at both DCV levels and verifies the polyrepresentation predictions for data fusion in IR. Data fusion improves retrieval performance over their constituent IR models only if the models all are quite conceptually/algorithmically dissimilar and equally and well performing, in that order of importance.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:48:28

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.646-654

0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Journal of information science. 27(2001) no.5, S.303-310

0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 5486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=5486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5486)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=5486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5486)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.3, S.365-367

0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 8710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=8710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 8710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8710)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=8710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 8710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8710)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.5, S.697-716

0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=4637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4637, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4637)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=4637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4637, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4637)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 5711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=5711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5711)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=5711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5711)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=4850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=4850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 5084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=5084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5084)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=5084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5084)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.007927371 = product of:
  0.055491596 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=3040,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
    0.041510954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041510954 = score(doc=3040,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Folgender Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Konzeption und Durchführung von nachhaltigen Evaluationen von Information Retrieval Systemen mit Visualisierungskomponenten. Bisherige Evaluationsansätze differieren sowohl in der Methodenauswahl als auch Untersuchungsanlage, wie eine State-of-the-Art-Analyse aufzeigt. Im Anschluss werden die größten Herausforderungen, die sich bei Evaluationen dieser Art ergeben mit Vorschlägen zu potenziellen Lösungsansätzen diskutiert. Auf der Grundlage eines morphologischen Rahmens wird ein Bezugsrahmen für die Evaluation von Information Retrieval Systemen mit Visualisierungskomponenten vorgeschlagen, das einen integrierten Ansatz zur Kombination geeigneter Methoden aus dem Bereich der Usability-Evaluation und der Retrievaleffektivitäts-Evaluation verfolgt.

0.007927371 = product of:
  0.055491596 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 5975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=5975,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 5975, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5975)
    0.041510954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041510954 = score(doc=5975,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 5975, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5975)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Im Information Retrieval tragen Evaluierungsinitiativen erheblich zur empirisch fundierten Forschung bei. Mit umfangreichen Kollektionen und Aufgaben unterstützen sie die Standardisierung und damit die Systementwicklung. Die wachsenden Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Korpora und Anwendungsszenarien führten zu einer starken Diversifizierung innerhalb der Evaluierungsinitiativen. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über den aktuellen Stand der wichtigsten Evaluierungsinitiativen und neuen Trends.

Source

Effektive Information Retrieval Verfahren in Theorie und Praxis: ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge des Vierten Hildesheimer Evaluierungs- und Retrievalworkshop (HIER 2005), Hildesheim, 20.7.2005. Hrsg.: T. Mandl u. C. Womser-Hacker

0.007787785 = product of:
  0.054514494 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=1454,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
    0.044029012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044029012 = score(doc=1454,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Information retrieval performance evaluation is commonly made based an the classical recall and precision based figures or graphs. However, important information indicating causes for variation may remain hidden under the average recall and precision figures. Identifying significant causes for variation can help researchers and developers to focus an opportunities for improvement that underlay the averages. This article presents a case study showing the potential of a statistical repeated measures analysis of variance for testing the significance of factors in retrieval performance variation. The TREC-9 Query Track performance data is used as a case study and the factors studied are retrieval method, topic, and their interaction. The results show that retrieval method, topic, and their interaction are all significant. A topic level analysis is also made to see the nature of variation in the performance of retrieval methods across topics. The observed retrieval performances of expansion runs are truly significant improvements for most of the topics. Analyses of the effect of query expansion an document ranking confirm that expansion affects ranking positively.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.379-391