Search (128 results, page 3 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Mandl, T.: Neue Entwicklungen bei den Evaluierungsinitiativen im Information Retrieval (2006) 0.01 
    0.005946367 = product of:
  0.023785468 = sum of:
    0.023785468 = weight(_text_:information in 5975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023785468 = score(doc=5975,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  2. Carterette, B.: Test collections (2009) 0.01 
    0.005946367 = product of:
  0.023785468 = sum of:
    0.023785468 = weight(_text_:information in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023785468 = score(doc=3891,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 3891, 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=3891)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Research and development of search engines and other information retrieval (IR) systems proceeds by a cycle of design, implementation, and experimentation, with the results of each experiment influencing design decisions in the next iteration of the cycle. Batch experiments on test collections help ensure that this process goes as smoothly and as quickly as possible. A test collection comprises a collection of documents, a set of information needs, and judgments of the relevance of documents to those needs.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  3. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000) 0.01 
    0.005757545 = product of:
  0.02303018 = sum of:
    0.02303018 = weight(_text_:information in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02303018 = score(doc=4587,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.432-443
  4. Robins, D.: Shifts of focus on various aspects of user information problems during interactive information retrieval (2000) 0.01 
    0.005757545 = product of:
  0.02303018 = sum of:
    0.02303018 = weight(_text_:information in 4995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02303018 = score(doc=4995,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 4995, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4995)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The author presents the results of additional analyses of shifts of focus in IR interaction. Results indicate that users and search intermediaries work toward search goals in nonlinear fashion. Twenty interactions between 20 different users and one of four different search intermediaries were examined. Analysis of discourse between the two parties during interactive information retrieval (IR) shows changes in topic occurs, on average, every seven utterances. These twenty interactions included some 9,858 utterances and 1,439 foci. Utterances are defined as any uninterrupted sound, statement, gesture, etc., made by a participant in the discourse dyad. These utterances are segmented by the researcher according to their intentional focus, i.e., the topic on which the conversation between the user and search intermediary focus until the focus changes (i.e., shifts of focus). In all but two of the 20 interactions, the search intermediary initiated a majority of shifts of focus. Six focus categories were observed. These were foci dealing with: documents; evaluation of search results; search strategies; IR system; topic of the search; and information about the user
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.10, S.913-928
  5. Blandford, A.; Adams, A.; Attfield, S.; Buchanan, G.; Gow, J.; Makri, S.; Rimmer, J.; Warwick, C.: ¬The PRET A Rapporter framework : evaluating digital libraries from the perspective of information work (2008) 0.01 
    0.005757545 = product of:
  0.02303018 = sum of:
    0.02303018 = weight(_text_:information in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02303018 = score(doc=2021,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The strongest tradition of IR systems evaluation has focused on system effectiveness; more recently, there has been a growing interest in evaluation of Interactive IR systems, balancing system and user-oriented evaluation criteria. In this paper we shift the focus to considering how IR systems, and particularly digital libraries, can be evaluated to assess (and improve) their fit with users' broader work activities. Taking this focus, we answer a different set of evaluation questions that reveal more about the design of interfaces, user-system interactions and how systems may be deployed in the information working context. The planning and conduct of such evaluation studies share some features with the established methods for conducting IR evaluation studies, but come with a shift in emphasis; for example, a greater range of ethical considerations may be pertinent. We present the PRET A Rapporter framework for structuring user-centred evaluation studies and illustrate its application to three evaluation studies of digital library systems.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.4-21
    Theme
    Information Gateway
  6. Morse, E.; Lewis, M.; Olsen, K.A.: Testing visual information retrieval methodologies case study : comparative analysis of textual, icon, graphical, and "spring" displays (2002) 0.01 
    0.0052030715 = product of:
  0.020812286 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=191,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 191, 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=191)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.1, S.28-40
  7. Kluck, M.; Mandl, T.; Womser-Hacker, C.: Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) : Europäische Initiative zur Bewertung sprachübergreifender Retrievalverfahren (2002) 0.01 
    0.0052030715 = product of:
  0.020812286 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=266,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Seit einigen Jahren hat sich in Europa eine Initiative zur Bewertung von Information Retrieval in mehrsprachigen Kontexten etabliert. Das Cross Language Evaluation forum (CLEF) wird von der EU gefördert und kooperiert mit Evaluierungsprojekten in den USA (TREC) und in Japan (NTCIR). Dieser Artikel stellt das CLEF in den Rahmen der anderen internationalen Initiativen. Neue Entwicklungen sowohl bei den Information Retrieval Systemen als auch bei den Evaluierungsmethoden werden aufgezeit. Die hohe Anzahl von Teilnehmern aus Forschungsinstitutionen und der Industrie beweist die steigende Bedeutung des sprachübergreifenden Retrievals
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 53(2002) H.2, S.82-89
  8. Della Mea, V.; Mizzaro, S.: Measuring retrieval effectiveness : a new proposal and a first experimental validation (2004) 0.01 
    0.0052030715 = product of:
  0.020812286 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=2263,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  9. Voorhees, E.M.: Question answering in TREC (2005) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 6487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=6487,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6487, 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=6487)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  10. Robertson, S.E.; Walker, S.; Beaulieu, M.: Experimentation as a way of life : Okapi at TREC (2000) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 6030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=6030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6030, 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=6030)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.95-108
  11. Pedersen, J.O.; Silverstein, C.; Vogt, C.C.: Verity at TREC-6 : out-of-the-box and beyond (2000) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 6427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=6427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6427, 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=6427)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.187-196
  12. Cormack, G.V.; Clarke, C.L.A.; Palmer, C.R.; To, S.S.L.: Passage-based refinement : MultiText experiments for TREC-6 (2000) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 6435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=6435,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6435, 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=6435)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.133-153
  13. Ding, C.H.Q.: ¬A probabilistic model for Latent Semantic Indexing (2005) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 3459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=3459,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3459, 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=3459)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI), when applied to semantic space built an text collections, improves information retrieval, information filtering, and word sense disambiguation. A new dual probability model based an the similarity concepts is introduced to provide deeper understanding of LSI. Semantic associations can be quantitatively characterized by their statistical significance, the likelihood. Semantic dimensions containing redundant and noisy information can be separated out and should be ignored because their negative contribution to the overall statistical significance. LSI is the optimal solution of the model. The peak in the likelihood curve indicates the existence of an intrinsic semantic dimension. The importance of LSI dimensions follows the Zipf-distribution, indicating that LSI dimensions represent latent concepts. Document frequency of words follows the Zipf distribution, and the number of distinct words follows log-normal distribution. Experiments an five standard document collections confirm and illustrate the analysis.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.6, S.597-608
  14. Kuriyama, K.; Kando, N.; Nozue, T.; Eguchi, K.: Pooling for a large-scale test collection : an analysis of the search results from the First NTCIR Workshop (2002) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 3830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=3830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3830, 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=3830)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information retrieval. 5(2002), S.41-59
  15. Cormack, G.V.; Clarke, C.L.A.; Palmer, C.R.; Lynam, T.R.: MultiText experiments for TREC (2005) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=4298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 4298, 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=4298)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  16. Dumais, S.T.; Belkin, N.J.: ¬The TREC interactive tracks : putting the user into search (2005) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5081, 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=5081)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  17. Hawking, D.; Craswell, N.: ¬The very large collection and Web tracks (2005) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5085, 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=5085)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  18. Allan, J.; Croft, W.B.; Callan, J.: ¬The University of Massachusetts and a dozen TRECs (2005) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5086,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5086, 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=5086)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  19. Robertson, S.: How Okapi came to TREC (2005) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5087, 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=5087)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  20. Buckley, C.: ¬The SMART Project at TREC (2005) 0.01 
    0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5088, 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=5088)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

Authors

Languages

  • e 107
  • d 19
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 120
  • m 5
  • el 3
  • s 3
  • x 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications