Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984) 0.03 
    0.026822504 = product of:
  0.053645007 = sum of:
    0.053645007 = product of:
      0.107290015 = sum of:
        0.107290015 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107290015 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20.10.2000 12:22:23
  2. Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Parker, J.: Maximizing relevant retrieval : keyword and natural language searching (1998) 0.03 
    0.026822504 = product of:
  0.053645007 = sum of:
    0.053645007 = product of:
      0.107290015 = sum of:
        0.107290015 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107290015 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58
  3. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.03 
    0.026822504 = product of:
  0.053645007 = sum of:
    0.053645007 = product of:
      0.107290015 = sum of:
        0.107290015 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107290015 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
  4. Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990) 0.03 
    0.026822504 = product of:
  0.053645007 = sum of:
    0.053645007 = product of:
      0.107290015 = sum of:
        0.107290015 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107290015 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:43:54
  5. Allan, J.; Callan, J.P.; Croft, W.B.; Ballesteros, L.; Broglio, J.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.: INQUERY at TREC-5 (1997) 0.02 
    0.019158931 = product of:
  0.038317863 = sum of:
    0.038317863 = product of:
      0.076635726 = sum of:
        0.076635726 = weight(_text_:22 in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076635726 = score(doc=3103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:55:22
  6. 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 
    0.019158931 = product of:
  0.038317863 = sum of:
    0.038317863 = product of:
      0.076635726 = sum of:
        0.076635726 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076635726 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    27. 2.1999 20:59:22
  7. Saracevic, T.: On a method for studying the structure and nature of requests in information retrieval (1983) 0.02 
    0.019158931 = product of:
  0.038317863 = sum of:
    0.038317863 = product of:
      0.076635726 = sum of:
        0.076635726 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076635726 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.22-25
  8. Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬A test for the separation of relevant and non-relevant documents in experimental retrieval collections (1973) 0.02 
    0.015327144 = product of:
  0.030654289 = sum of:
    0.030654289 = product of:
      0.061308578 = sum of:
        0.061308578 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061308578 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    19. 3.1996 11:22:12
  9. Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996) 0.02 
    0.015327144 = product of:
  0.030654289 = sum of:
    0.030654289 = product of:
      0.061308578 = sum of:
        0.061308578 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061308578 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  10. Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997) 0.02 
    0.015327144 = product of:
  0.030654289 = sum of:
    0.030654289 = product of:
      0.061308578 = sum of:
        0.061308578 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061308578 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  11. ¬The Fifth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-5) (1997) 0.02 
    0.015327144 = product of:
  0.030654289 = sum of:
    0.030654289 = product of:
      0.061308578 = sum of:
        0.061308578 = weight(_text_:22 in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061308578 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3087, 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=3087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Proceedings of the 5th TREC-confrerence held in Gaithersburgh, Maryland, Nov 20-22, 1996. Aim of the conference was discussion on retrieval techniques for large test collections. Different research groups used different techniques, such as automated thesauri, term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The proceedings include papers, tables of the system results, and brief system descriptions including timing and storage information
  12. Pemberton, J.K.; Ojala, M.; Garman, N.: Head to head : searching the Web versus traditional services (1998) 0.02 
    0.015327144 = product of:
  0.030654289 = sum of:
    0.030654289 = product of:
      0.061308578 = sum of:
        0.061308578 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061308578 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28
  13. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.02 
    0.015327144 = product of:
  0.030654289 = sum of:
    0.030654289 = product of:
      0.061308578 = sum of:
        0.061308578 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061308578 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  14. Ellis, D.: Progress and problems in information retrieval (1996) 0.02 
    0.015327144 = product of:
  0.030654289 = sum of:
    0.030654289 = product of:
      0.061308578 = sum of:
        0.061308578 = weight(_text_:22 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061308578 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26. 7.2002 20:22:46
  15. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.02 
    0.015327144 = product of:
  0.030654289 = sum of:
    0.030654289 = product of:
      0.061308578 = sum of:
        0.061308578 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061308578 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  16. Ménard, E.: Image retrieval : a comparative study on the influence of indexing vocabularies (2009) 0.01 
    0.014712218 = product of:
  0.029424436 = sum of:
    0.029424436 = product of:
      0.08827331 = sum of:
        0.08827331 = weight(_text_:objects in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08827331 = score(doc=3250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30063897 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper reports on a research project that compared two different approaches for the indexing of ordinary images representing common objects: traditional indexing with controlled vocabulary and free indexing with uncontrolled vocabulary. We also compared image retrieval within two contexts: a monolingual context where the language of the query is the same as the indexing language and, secondly, a multilingual context where the language of the query is different from the indexing language. As a means of comparison in evaluating the performance of each indexing form, a simulation of the retrieval process involving 30 images was performed with 60 participants. A questionnaire was also submitted to participants in order to gather information with regard to the retrieval process and performance. The results of the retrieval simulation confirm that the retrieval is more effective and more satisfactory for the searcher when the images are indexed with the approach combining the controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. The results also indicate that the indexing approach with controlled vocabulary is more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) than the uncontrolled vocabulary indexing approach. However, no significant differences in terms of temporal efficiency (time required to retrieve an image) was observed. Finally, the comparison of the two linguistic contexts reveal that the retrieval is more effective and more efficient (queries needed to retrieve an image) in the monolingual context rather than the multilingual context. Furthermore, image searchers are more satisfied when the retrieval is done in a monolingual context rather than a multilingual context.
  17. Saracevic, T.: Effects of inconsistent relevance judgments on information retrieval test results : a historical perspective (2008) 0.01 
    0.014712218 = product of:
  0.029424436 = sum of:
    0.029424436 = product of:
      0.08827331 = sum of:
        0.08827331 = weight(_text_:objects in 5585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08827331 = score(doc=5585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.30063897 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  18. Blagden, J.F.: How much noise in a role-free and link-free co-ordinate indexing system? (1966) 0.01 
    0.013411252 = product of:
  0.026822504 = sum of:
    0.026822504 = product of:
      0.053645007 = sum of:
        0.053645007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053645007 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 22(1966), S.203-209
  19. Smithson, S.: Information retrieval evaluation in practice : a case study approach (1994) 0.01 
    0.013411252 = product of:
  0.026822504 = sum of:
    0.026822504 = product of:
      0.053645007 = sum of:
        0.053645007 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053645007 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The evaluation of information retrieval systems is an important yet difficult operation. This paper describes an exploratory evaluation study that takes an interpretive approach to evaluation. The longitudinal study examines evaluation through the information-seeking behaviour of 22 case studies of 'real' users. The eclectic approach to data collection produced behavioral data that is compared with relevance judgements and satisfaction ratings. The study demonstrates considerable variations among the cases, among different evaluation measures within the same case, and among the same measures at different stages within a single case. It is argued that those involved in evaluation should be aware of the difficulties, and base any evaluation on a good understanding of the cases in question
  20. Blair, D.C.: STAIRS Redux : thoughts on the STAIRS evaluation, ten years after (1996) 0.01 
    0.013411252 = product of:
  0.026822504 = sum of:
    0.026822504 = product of:
      0.053645007 = sum of:
        0.053645007 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053645007 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19807571 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056563493 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.4-22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 33
  • d 3
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 34
  • s 3
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes