Search (133 results, page 2 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Hierl, S.: Bezugsrahmen für die Evaluation von Information Retrieval Systemen mit Visualisierungskomponenten (2007) 0.00 
    0.004302734 = product of:
  0.032270502 = sum of:
    0.01324461 = weight(_text_:und in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01324461 = score(doc=3040,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
    0.003527615 = weight(_text_:in in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003527615 = score(doc=3040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
    0.01324461 = weight(_text_:und in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01324461 = score(doc=3040,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 3040, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3040)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 3040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=3040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 3040, 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=3040)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    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.
  2. Oberhauser, O.; Labner, J.: OPAC-Erweiterung durch automatische Indexierung : Empirische Untersuchung mit Daten aus dem Österreichischen Verbundkatalog (2002) 0.00 
    0.0041751442 = product of:
  0.03131358 = sum of:
    0.0121659525 = weight(_text_:und in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0121659525 = score(doc=883,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=883,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
    0.0121659525 = weight(_text_:und in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0121659525 = score(doc=883,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    In Anlehnung an die in den neunziger Jahren durchgeführten Erschließungsprojekte MILOS I und MILOS II, die die Eignung eines Verfahrens zur automatischen Indexierung für Bibliothekskataloge zum Thema hatten, wurde eine empirische Untersuchung anhand einer repräsentativen Stichprobe von Titelsätzen aus dem Österreichischen Verbundkatalog durchgeführt. Ziel war die Prüfung und Bewertung der Einsatzmöglichkeit dieses Verfahrens in den Online-Katalogen des Verbundes. Der Realsituation der OPAC-Benutzung gemäß wurde ausschließlich die Auswirkung auf den automatisch generierten Begriffen angereicherten Basic Index ("Alle Felder") untersucht. Dazu wurden 100 Suchanfragen zunächst im ursprünglichen Basic Index und sodann im angereicherten Basic Index in einem OPAC unter Aleph 500 durchgeführt. Die Tests erbrachten einen Zuwachs an relevanten Treffern bei nur leichten Verlusten an Precision, eine Reduktion der Nulltreffer-Ergebnisse sowie Aufschlüsse über die Auswirkung einer vorhandenen verbalen Sacherschließung.
    Source
    ABI-Technik. 23(2003) H.4, S.305-314
  3. Grasso, L.L.; Wahlig, H.: Google und seine Suchparameter : Eine Top 20-Precision Analyse anhand repräsentativ ausgewählter Anfragen (2005) 0.00 
    0.0039715082 = product of:
  0.03971508 = sum of:
    0.018730707 = weight(_text_:und in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018730707 = score(doc=3275,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
    0.018730707 = weight(_text_:und in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018730707 = score(doc=3275,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=3275,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 3275, 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=3275)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Im Aufsatz werden zunächst führende Precision-Analysen zusammengefasst und kritisch bewertet. Darauf aufbauend werden Methodik und Ergebnisse dieser auf Google beschränkten Untersuchung vorgestellt. Im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung werden die von Google angebotenen Retrievaloperatoren einer Qualitätsmessung unterzogen. Als methodisches Mittel dazu dient eine Top20-Precision-Analyse von acht Suchanfragen verschiedener vorab definierter Nutzertypen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.2, S.77-86
  4. Fugmann, R.: ¬Das Faule Ei des Kolumbus im Aslib-Cranfield Vergleich von Informationssystemen : Die erneute Betrachtung eines einflussreichen Experiments (2004) 0.00 
    0.0030359179 = product of:
  0.030359179 = sum of:
    0.01419361 = weight(_text_:und in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01419361 = score(doc=2364,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.01419361 = weight(_text_:und in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01419361 = score(doc=2364,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=2364,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 2364, 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=2364)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag gibt einen kritischen Rückblick auf die Experimente des ASLIB-CranfieldProjekts, mit dem die Leistungsfähigkeit verschiedenere Methoden der Inhaltserschließung verglichen wurden. Bemängelt wird die fehlende Unterscheidung zwischen Erinnerungsrecherche und Entdeckungsrecherche sowie die Wirklichkeitsferne der Versuchsbedingungen im ASLIB-Cranfield Projekt insbesondere Abwertung der Indexierung, Wirklichkeitsferne der Suchziele, die Empfehlung zum oberflächlichen Indexieren, die vermeintliche "gesetzmäßige Umkehrrelation" zwischen Ballast und Verlust sowie die Geringschätzung von Informationsverlust. Der Autor plädiert dafür, bei der Weiterentwicklung von Methoden der Inhaltserschließung die Erfahrungen aus der Vergangenheit nicht außer Acht zu lassen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 55(2004) H.4, S.211-220
  5. Kwok, K.-L.: Ten years of ad hoc retrieval at TREC using PIRCS (2005) 0.00 
    0.0023731373 = product of:
  0.023731373 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 5090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=5090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5090, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5090)
    0.015059452 = product of:
      0.045178354 = sum of:
        0.045178354 = weight(_text_:l in 5090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045178354 = score(doc=5090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 5090, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5090)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 5090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033805002 = score(doc=5090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 5090, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5090)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Pages
    S.321-346
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  6. Fan, W.; Luo, M.; Wang, L.; Xi, W.; Fox, E.A.: Tuning before feedback : combining ranking discovery and blind feedback for robust retrieval (2004) 0.00 
    0.0019776148 = product of:
  0.019776147 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 4052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=4052,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4052, 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=4052)
    0.012549544 = product of:
      0.03764863 = sum of:
        0.03764863 = weight(_text_:l in 4052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03764863 = score(doc=4052,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.4391412 = fieldWeight in 4052, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4052)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 4052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0028170836 = score(doc=4052,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 4052, 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=4052)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Pages
    S.138-145
    Source
    SIGIR'04: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference an Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Ed.: K. Järvelin, u.a
  7. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.00 
    0.0017470915 = product of:
  0.017470915 = sum of:
    0.003527615 = weight(_text_:in in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003527615 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
    0.011689632 = product of:
      0.023379264 = sum of:
        0.023379264 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023379264 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Proceedings of the llth TREC-conference held in Gaithersburg, Maryland (USA), November 19-22, 2002. Aim of the conference was discussion an retrieval and related information-seeking tasks for large test collection. 93 research groups used different techniques, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The tasks are: Cross-language searching, filtering, interactive searching, searching for novelty, question answering, searching for video shots, and Web searching.
    Type
    s
  8. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.00 
    0.0016267182 = product of:
  0.024400773 = sum of:
    0.003943917 = weight(_text_:s in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003943917 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
    0.020456856 = product of:
      0.040913712 = sum of:
        0.040913712 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040913712 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.3-36
  9. Ahlgren, P.; Grönqvist, L.: Evaluation of retrieval effectiveness with incomplete relevance data : theoretical and experimental comparison of three measures (2008) 0.00 
    0.001512184 = product of:
  0.01512184 = sum of:
    0.004365201 = weight(_text_:in in 2032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004365201 = score(doc=2032,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2032, 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=2032)
    0.008784681 = product of:
      0.026354041 = sum of:
        0.026354041 = weight(_text_:l in 2032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026354041 = score(doc=2032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 2032, 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=2032)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 2032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=2032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 2032, 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=2032)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    This paper investigates two relatively new measures of retrieval effectiveness in relation to the problem of incomplete relevance data. The measures, Bpref and RankEff, which do not take into account documents that have not been relevance judged, are compared theoretically and experimentally. The experimental comparisons involve a third measure, the well-known mean uninterpolated average precision. The results indicate that RankEff is the most stable of the three measures when the amount of relevance data is reduced, with respect to system ranking and absolute values. In addition, RankEff has the lowest error-rate.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.212-225
  10. Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000) 0.00 
    0.0015039981 = product of:
  0.01503998 = sum of:
    0.0045825066 = weight(_text_:in in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045825066 = score(doc=2552,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
    0.008767224 = product of:
      0.017534448 = sum of:
        0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017534448 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to examine interindexer consistency (the degree to which indexers, when assigning terms to a chosen record, will choose the same terms to reflect that record) in the PsycINFO database using 60 records that were inadvertently processed twice between 1996 and 1998. Five aspects of interindexer consistency were analysed. Two methods were used to calculate interindexer consistency: one posited by Hooper (1965) and the other by Rollin (1981). Aspects analysed were: checktag consistency (66.24% using Hooper's calculation and 77.17% using Rollin's); major-to-all term consistency (49.31% and 62.59% respectively); overall indexing consistency (49.02% and 63.32%); classification code consistency (44.17% and 45.00%); and major-to-major term consistency (43.24% and 56.09%). The average consistency across all categories was 50.4% using Hooper's method and 60.83% using Rollin's. Although comparison with previous studies is difficult due to methodological variations in the overall study of indexing consistency and the specific characteristics of the database, results generally support previous findings when trends and similar studies are analysed.
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Source
    Journal of librarianship and information science. 32(2000) no.1, S.4-8
  11. King, D.W.: Blazing new trails : in celebration of an audacious career (2000) 0.00 
    0.0014547808 = product of:
  0.014547808 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=1184,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    I had the distinct pleasure of working with Pauline Atherton (Cochrane) during the 1960s, a period that can be considered the heyday of automated information system design and evaluation in the United States. I first met Pauline at the 1962 American Documentation Institute annual meeting in North Hollywood, Florida. My company, Westat Research Analysts, had recently been awarded a contract by the U.S. Patent Office to provide statistical support for the design of experiments with automated information retrieval systems. I was asked to attend the meeting to learn more about information retrieval systems and to begin informing others of U.S. Patent Office activities in this area. At one session, Pauline and I questioned a speaker about the research that he presented. Pauline's questions concerned the logic of their approach and mine, the statistical aspects. After the session, she came over to talk to me and we began a professional and personal friendship that continues to this day. During the 1960s, Pauline was involved in several important information-retrieval projects including a series of studies for the American Institute of Physics, a dissertation examining the relevance of retrieved documents, and development and evaluation of an online information-retrieval system. I had the opportunity to work with Pauline and her colleagues an four of those projects and will briefly describe her work in the 1960s.
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Pages
    S.59-78
    Source
    Saving the time of the library user through subject access innovation: Papers in honor of Pauline Atherton Cochrane. Ed.: W.J. Wheeler
  12. Fraser, L.; Locatis, C.: Effects of link annotations on search performance in layered and unlayered hierarchically organized information spaces (2001) 0.00 
    0.0013919314 = product of:
  0.013919314 = sum of:
    0.006236001 = weight(_text_:in in 6937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006236001 = score(doc=6937,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 6937, 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=6937)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 6937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=6937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 6937, 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=6937)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 6937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=6937,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 6937, 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=6937)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    The effects of link annotations on user search performance in hypertext environments having deep (layered) and shallow link structures were investigated in this study. Four environments were tested-layered-annotated, layered-unannotated, shallow-annotated, and shallow-unannotated. A single document was divided into 48 sections, and layered and unlayered versions were created. Additional versions were created by adding annotations to the links in the layered and unlayered versions. Subjects were given three queries of varying difficulty and then asked to find the answers to the queries that were contained within the hypertext environment to which they were randomly assigned. Correspondence between the wording links and queries was used to define difficulty level. The results of the study confirmed previous research that shallow link structures are better than deep (layered) link structures. Annotations had virtually no effect on the search performance of the subjects. The subjects performed similarly in the annotated and unannotated environments, regardless of whether the link structures were shallow or deep. An analysis of question difficulty suggests that the wording in links has primacy over the wording in annotations in influencing user search behavior.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1255-1261
  13. Baillie, M.; Azzopardi, L.; Ruthven, I.: Evaluating epistemic uncertainty under incomplete assessments (2008) 0.00 
    0.0012961577 = product of:
  0.012961577 = sum of:
    0.003741601 = weight(_text_:in in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003741601 = score(doc=2065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2065, 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=2065)
    0.007529726 = product of:
      0.022589177 = sum of:
        0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022589177 = score(doc=2065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 2065, 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=2065)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=2065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2065, 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=2065)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    The thesis of this study is to propose an extended methodology for laboratory based Information Retrieval evaluation under incomplete relevance assessments. This new methodology aims to identify potential uncertainty during system comparison that may result from incompleteness. The adoption of this methodology is advantageous, because the detection of epistemic uncertainty - the amount of knowledge (or ignorance) we have about the estimate of a system's performance - during the evaluation process can guide and direct researchers when evaluating new systems over existing and future test collections. Across a series of experiments we demonstrate how this methodology can lead towards a finer grained analysis of systems. In particular, we show through experimentation how the current practice in Information Retrieval evaluation of using a measurement depth larger than the pooling depth increases uncertainty during system comparison.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.811-837
  14. Ferret, O.; Grau, B.; Hurault-Plantet, M.; Illouz, G.; Jacquemin, C.; Monceaux, L.; Robba, I.; Vilnat, A.: How NLP can improve question answering (2002) 0.00 
    0.0011865686 = product of:
  0.011865687 = sum of:
    0.0026457112 = weight(_text_:in in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026457112 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
    0.007529726 = product of:
      0.022589177 = sum of:
        0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022589177 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1850, 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=1850)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=1850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1850, 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=1850)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Answering open-domain factual questions requires Natural Language processing for refining document selection and answer identification. With our system QALC, we have participated in the Question Answering track of the TREC8, TREC9 and TREC10 evaluations. QALC performs an analysis of documents relying an multiword term searches and their linguistic variation both to minimize the number of documents selected and to provide additional clues when comparing question and sentence representations. This comparison process also makes use of the results of a syntactic parsing of the questions and Named Entity recognition functionalities. Answer extraction relies an the application of syntactic patterns chosen according to the kind of information that is sought, and categorized depending an the syntactic form of the question. These patterns allow QALC to handle nicely linguistic variations at the answer level.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.135-155
  15. Petrelli, D.: On the role of user-centred evaluation in the advancement of interactive information retrieval (2008) 0.00 
    0.0011832564 = product of:
  0.011832563 = sum of:
    0.0031180005 = weight(_text_:in in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031180005 = score(doc=2026,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
    0.0073060202 = product of:
      0.0146120405 = sum of:
        0.0146120405 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146120405 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the role of user-centred evaluations as an essential method for researching interactive information retrieval. It draws mainly on the work carried out during the Clarity Project where different user-centred evaluations were run during the lifecycle of a cross-language information retrieval system. The iterative testing was not only instrumental to the development of a usable system, but it enhanced our knowledge of the potential, impact, and actual use of cross-language information retrieval technology. Indeed the role of the user evaluation was dual: by testing a specific prototype it was possible to gain a micro-view and assess the effectiveness of each component of the complex system; by cumulating the result of all the evaluations (in total 43 people were involved) it was possible to build a macro-view of how cross-language retrieval would impact on users and their tasks. By showing the richness of results that can be acquired, this paper aims at stimulating researchers into considering user-centred evaluations as a flexible, adaptable and comprehensive technique for investigating non-traditional information access systems.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38
  16. TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval (2005) 0.00 
    0.0011466531 = product of:
  0.011466531 = sum of:
    0.005621056 = weight(_text_:in in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005621056 = score(doc=636,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19158077 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.0044369334 = product of:
      0.0133108 = sum of:
        0.0133108 = weight(_text_:l in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133108 = score(doc=636,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.15525986 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=636,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), a yearly workshop hosted by the US government's National Institute of Standards and Technology, provides the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. With the goal of accelerating research in this area, TREC created the first large test collections of full-text documents and standardized retrieval evaluation. The impact has been significant; since TREC's beginning in 1992, retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled. TREC has built a variety of large test collections, including collections for such specialized retrieval tasks as cross-language retrieval and retrieval of speech. Moreover, TREC has accelerated the transfer of research ideas into commercial systems, as demonstrated in the number of retrieval techniques developed in TREC that are now used in Web search engines. This book provides a comprehensive review of TREC research, summarizing the variety of TREC results, documenting the best practices in experimental information retrieval, and suggesting areas for further research. The first part of the book describes TREC's history, test collections, and retrieval methodology. Next, the book provides "track" reports -- describing the evaluations of specific tasks, including routing and filtering, interactive retrieval, and retrieving noisy text. The final part of the book offers perspectives on TREC from such participants as Microsoft Research, University of Massachusetts, Cornell University, University of Waterloo, City University of New York, and IBM. The book will be of interest to researchers in information retrieval and related technologies, including natural language processing.
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: 1. The Text REtrieval Conference - Ellen M. Voorhees and Donna K. Harman 2. The TREC Test Collections - Donna K. Harman 3. Retrieval System Evaluation - Chris Buckley and Ellen M. Voorhees 4. The TREC Ad Hoc Experiments - Donna K. Harman 5. Routing and Filtering - Stephen Robertson and Jamie Callan 6. The TREC Interactive Tracks: Putting the User into Search - Susan T. Dumais and Nicholas J. Belkin 7. Beyond English - Donna K. Harman 8. Retrieving Noisy Text - Ellen M. Voorhees and John S. Garofolo 9.The Very Large Collection and Web Tracks - David Hawking and Nick Craswell 10. Question Answering in TREC - Ellen M. Voorhees 11. The University of Massachusetts and a Dozen TRECs - James Allan, W. Bruce Croft and Jamie Callan 12. How Okapi Came to TREC - Stephen Robertson 13. The SMART Project at TREC - Chris Buckley 14. Ten Years of Ad Hoc Retrieval at TREC Using PIRCS - Kui-Lam Kwok 15. MultiText Experiments for TREC - Gordon V. Cormack, Charles L. A. Clarke, Christopher R. Palmer and Thomas R. Lynam 16. A Language-Modeling Approach to TREC - Djoerd Hiemstra and Wessel Kraaij 17. BM Research Activities at TREC - Eric W. Brown, David Carmel, Martin Franz, Abraham Ittycheriah, Tapas Kanungo, Yoelle Maarek, J. Scott McCarley, Robert L. Mack, John M. Prager, John R. Smith, Aya Soffer, Jason Y. Zien and Alan D. Marwick Epilogue: Metareflections on TREC - Karen Sparck Jones
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.6, S.910-911 (J.L. Vicedo u. J. Gomez): "The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a yearly workshop hosted by the U.S. government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that fosters and supports research in information retrieval as well as speeding the transfer of technology between research labs and industry. Since 1992, TREC has provided the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluations of different text retrieval methodologies. TREC impact has been very important and its success has been mainly supported by its continuous adaptation to the emerging information retrieval needs. Not in vain, TREC has built evaluation benchmarks for more than 20 different retrieval problems such as Web retrieval, speech retrieval, or question-answering. The large and intense trajectory of annual TREC conferences has resulted in an immense bulk of documents reflecting the different eval uation and research efforts developed. This situation makes it difficult sometimes to observe clearly how research in information retrieval (IR) has evolved over the course of TREC. TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval succeeds in organizing and condensing all this research into a manageable volume that describes TREC history and summarizes the main lessons learned. The book is organized into three parts. The first part is devoted to the description of TREC's origin and history, the test collections, and the evaluation methodology developed. The second part describes a selection of the major evaluation exercises (tracks), and the third part contains contributions from research groups that had a large and remarkable participation in TREC. Finally, Karen Spark Jones, one of the main promoters of research in IR, closes the book with an epilogue that analyzes the impact of TREC on this research field.
    ... TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval is a reliable and comprehensive review of the TREC program and has been adopted by NIST as the official history of TREC (see http://trec.nist.gov). We were favorably surprised by the book. Well structured and written, chapters are self-contained and the existence of references to specialized and more detailed publications is continuous, which makes it easier to expand into the different aspects analyzed in the text. This book succeeds in compiling TREC evolution from its inception in 1992 to 2003 in an adequate and manageable volume. Thanks to the impressive effort performed by the authors and their experience in the field, it can satiate the interests of a great variety of readers. While expert researchers in the IR field and IR-related industrial companies can use it as a reference manual, it seems especially useful for students and non-expert readers willing to approach this research area. Like NIST, we would recommend this reading to anyone who may be interested in textual information retrieval."
    Pages
    X, 462 S
    Type
    s
  17. Larsen, B.; Ingwersen, P.; Lund, B.: Data fusion according to the principle of polyrepresentation (2009) 0.00 
    0.0010026655 = product of:
  0.010026654 = sum of:
    0.0030550044 = weight(_text_:in in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030550044 = score(doc=2752,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
    0.005844816 = product of:
      0.011689632 = sum of:
        0.011689632 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011689632 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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
  18. Rao, A.; Lu, A.; Meier, E.; Ahmed, S.; Pliske, D.: Query processing in TREC6 (2000) 0.00 
    7.8339124E-4 = product of:
  0.011750868 = sum of:
    0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 6420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061733257 = score(doc=6420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 6420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6420)
    0.0055775414 = weight(_text_:s in 6420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055775414 = score(doc=6420,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23783323 = fieldWeight in 6420, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6420)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.179-186
  19. Robertson, S.; Callan, J.: Routing and filtering (2005) 0.00 
    7.8339124E-4 = product of:
  0.011750868 = sum of:
    0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061733257 = score(doc=4688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
    0.0055775414 = weight(_text_:s in 4688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055775414 = score(doc=4688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23783323 = fieldWeight in 4688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4688)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Pages
    S.99-122
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  20. Voorhees, E.M.: Question answering in TREC (2005) 0.00 
    7.242469E-4 = product of:
  0.010863703 = sum of:
    0.007483202 = weight(_text_:in in 6487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007483202 = score(doc=6487,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 6487, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6487)
    0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 6487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033805002 = score(doc=6487,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 6487, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6487)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Pages
    S.233-259
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

Authors

Languages

  • e 108
  • d 23
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 124
  • m 5
  • s 3
  • el 2
  • r 2
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications