Search (70 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.06 
    0.057960164 = product of:
  0.14490041 = sum of:
    0.06843324 = weight(_text_:7 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06843324 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.2928101 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.076467164 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076467164 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Die deutschen Suchmaschinen, Abacho, Acoon, Fireball und Lycos sowie die Web-Kataloge Web.de und Yahoo! werden einem Qualitätstest nach relativem Recall, Precision und Availability unterzogen. Die Methoden der Retrievaltests werden vorgestellt. Im Durchschnitt werden bei einem Cut-Off-Wert von 25 ein Recall von rund 22%, eine Precision von knapp 19% und eine Verfügbarkeit von 24% erreicht
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 52(2001) H.7, S.381-392
  2. Ronthaler, M.; Zillmann, H.: Literaturrecherche mit OSIRIS : ein Test der OSIRIS-Retrievalkomponente (1998) 0.03 
    0.027373297 = product of:
  0.13686648 = sum of:
    0.13686648 = weight(_text_:7 in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13686648 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.5856202 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Bibliotheksdienst. 32(1998) H.7, S.1203-1212
  3. Ongering, H.; Riesthuis, G.J.A.: ¬De ontsluiting in het ADION-systeem : precision en recall (1989) 0.03 
    0.027373297 = product of:
  0.13686648 = sum of:
    0.13686648 = weight(_text_:7 in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13686648 = score(doc=416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.5856202 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Open. 21(1989) nos.7/8, S.261-264
  4. Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984) 0.03 
    0.026763504 = product of:
  0.13381752 = sum of:
    0.13381752 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13381752 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, 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=262)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20.10.2000 12:22:23
  5. Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Parker, J.: Maximizing relevant retrieval : keyword and natural language searching (1998) 0.03 
    0.026763504 = product of:
  0.13381752 = sum of:
    0.13381752 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13381752 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, 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=6418)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58
  6. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.03 
    0.026763504 = product of:
  0.13381752 = sum of:
    0.13381752 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13381752 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
  7. Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990) 0.03 
    0.026763504 = product of:
  0.13381752 = sum of:
    0.13381752 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13381752 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, 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=5089)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:43:54
  8. Croft, W.B.; Thompson, R.H.: Support for browsing in an intelligent text retrieval system (1989) 0.02 
    0.023951633 = product of:
  0.11975816 = sum of:
    0.11975816 = weight(_text_:7 in 5004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11975816 = score(doc=5004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.5124177 = fieldWeight in 5004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5004)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    7. 8.1996 8:57:01
  9. Järvelin, K.: Evaluation (2011) 0.02 
    0.023951633 = product of:
  0.11975816 = sum of:
    0.11975816 = weight(_text_:7 in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11975816 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.5124177 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    7. 1.2013 19:34:12
  10. Ménard, E.: Image retrieval : a comparative study on the influence of indexing vocabularies (2009) 0.02 
    0.022019787 = product of:
  0.110098936 = sum of:
    0.110098936 = weight(_text_:objects in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110098936 = score(doc=3250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37497213 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.
  11. Saracevic, T.: Effects of inconsistent relevance judgments on information retrieval test results : a historical perspective (2008) 0.02 
    0.022019787 = product of:
  0.110098936 = sum of:
    0.110098936 = weight(_text_:objects in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110098936 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37497213 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 5585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5585)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The main objective of information retrieval (IR) systems is to retrieve information or information objects relevant to user requests and possible needs. In IR tests, retrieval effectiveness is established by comparing IR systems retrievals (systems relevance) with users' or user surrogates' assessments (user relevance), where user relevance is treated as the gold standard for performance evaluation. Relevance is a human notion, and establishing relevance by humans is fraught with a number of problems-inconsistency in judgment being one of them. The aim of this critical review is to explore the relationship between relevance on the one hand and testing of IR systems and procedures on the other. Critics of IR tests raised the issue of validity of the IR tests because they were based on relevance judgments that are inconsistent. This review traces and synthesizes experimental studies dealing with (1) inconsistency of relevance judgments by people, (2) effects of such inconsistency on results of IR tests and (3) reasons for retrieval failures. A historical context for these studies and for IR testing is provided including an assessment of Lancaster's (1969) evaluation of MEDLARS and its unique place in the history of IR evaluation.
  12. Allan, J.; Callan, J.P.; Croft, W.B.; Ballesteros, L.; Broglio, J.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.: INQUERY at TREC-5 (1997) 0.02 
    0.019116791 = product of:
  0.09558395 = sum of:
    0.09558395 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09558395 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:55:22
  13. Ng, K.B.; Loewenstern, D.; Basu, C.; Hirsh, H.; Kantor, P.B.: Data fusion of machine-learning methods for the TREC5 routing tak (and other work) (1997) 0.02 
    0.019116791 = product of:
  0.09558395 = sum of:
    0.09558395 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09558395 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:59:22
  14. Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983) 0.02 
    0.019116791 = product of:
  0.09558395 = sum of:
    0.09558395 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09558395 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Pages
    S.22-25
  15. Evans, J.E.: Some external and internal factors affecting users of interactive information systems (1996) 0.02 
    0.017779477 = product of:
  0.088897385 = sum of:
    0.088897385 = weight(_text_:7 in 6262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088897385 = score(doc=6262,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.3803715 = fieldWeight in 6262, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6262)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This contribution reports the results of continuing research in human-information system interactions. Following training and experience with an electronic information retrieval system novice and experienced subject groups responded to questions ranking their value assessments of 7 attributes of information sources in relation to 15 factors describing the search process. In general, novice users were more heavily influenced by the process factors (negative influences) than by the positive attributes of information qualities. Experienced users, while still concerned with process factors, were more strongly influenced by the qualitative information attributes. The specific advantages and contributions of this research are several: higher dimensionality of measured factors and attributes (15 x 7); higher granularity of analysis using a 7 value metric in a closed-end Likert scale; development of bi-directional, firced-choice influence vectors; and a larger sample size (N=186) than previously reported in the literature
  16. Griesbaum, J.; Rittberger, M.; Bekavac, B.: Deutsche Suchmaschinen im Vergleich : AltaVista.de, Fireball.de, Google.de und Lycos.de (2002) 0.02 
    0.01710831 = product of:
  0.08554155 = sum of:
    0.08554155 = weight(_text_:7 in 1159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554155 = score(doc=1159,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.36601263 = fieldWeight in 1159, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1159)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Information und Mobilität: Optimierung und Vermeidung von Mobilität durch Information. Proceedings des 8. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2002), 7.-10.10.2002, Regensburg. Hrsg.: Rainer Hammwöhner, Christian Wolff, Christa Womser-Hacker
  17. Wu, C.-J.: Experiments on using the Dublin Core to reduce the retrieval error ratio (1998) 0.02 
    0.016936364 = product of:
  0.08468182 = sum of:
    0.08468182 = weight(_text_:7 in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08468182 = score(doc=5201,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.36233404 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    In order to test the power of metadata on information retrieval, an experiment was designed and conducted on a group of 7 graduate students using the Dublin Core as the cataloguing metadata. Results show that, on average, the retrieval error rate is only 2.9 per cent for the MES system (http://140.136.85.194), which utilizes the Dublin Core to describe the documents on the World Wide Web, in contrast to 20.7 per cent for the 7 famous search engines including HOTBOT, GAIS, LYCOS, EXCITE, INFOSEEK, YAHOO, and OCTOPUS. The very low error rate indicates that the users can use the information of the Dublin Core to decide whether to retrieve the documents or not
  18. Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬A test for the separation of relevant and non-relevant documents in experimental retrieval collections (1973) 0.02 
    0.015293433 = product of:
  0.076467164 = sum of:
    0.076467164 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076467164 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5002, 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=5002)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    19. 3.1996 11:22:12
  19. Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996) 0.02 
    0.015293433 = product of:
  0.076467164 = sum of:
    0.076467164 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076467164 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, 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=6971)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
  20. Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997) 0.02 
    0.015293433 = product of:
  0.076467164 = sum of:
    0.076467164 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076467164 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 744, 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=744)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 58
  • d 8
  • chi 1
  • f 1
  • nl 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 64
  • s 5
  • el 3
  • m 3
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications