-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.03
0.028787265 = product of:
0.05757453 = sum of:
0.05757453 = sum of:
0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007654148 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04992038 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
- Type
- a
-
Schaat, S.: Von der automatisierten Manipulation zur Manipulation der Automatisierung (2019)
0.03
0.02766634 = product of:
0.05533268 = sum of:
0.05533268 = sum of:
0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054123 = score(doc=4996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4996, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4996)
0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 4996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04992038 = score(doc=4996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4996, 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=4996)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 2.2019 17:22:00
- Type
- a
-
Bauckhage, C.: Marginalizing over the PageRank damping factor (2014)
0.00
0.0033826875 = product of:
0.006765375 = sum of:
0.006765375 = product of:
0.01353075 = sum of:
0.01353075 = weight(_text_:a in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01353075 = score(doc=928,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this note, we show how to marginalize over the damping parameter of the PageRank equation so as to obtain a parameter-free version known as TotalRank. Our discussion is meant as a reference and intended to provide a guided tour towards an interesting result that has applications in information retrieval and classification.
- Type
- a
-
Hodson, H.: Google's fact-checking bots build vast knowledge bank (2014)
0.00
0.0023435948 = product of:
0.0046871896 = sum of:
0.0046871896 = product of:
0.009374379 = sum of:
0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 1700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009374379 = score(doc=1700,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1700, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1700)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The search giant is automatically building Knowledge Vault, a massive database that could give us unprecedented access to the world's facts GOOGLE is building the largest store of knowledge in human history - and it's doing so without any human help. Instead, Knowledge Vault autonomously gathers and merges information from across the web into a single base of facts about the world, and the people and objects in it.
- Type
- a
-
Zhao, Y.; Ma, F.; Xia, X.: Evaluating the coverage of entities in knowledge graphs behind general web search engines : Poster (2017)
0.00
0.0022374375 = product of:
0.004474875 = sum of:
0.004474875 = product of:
0.00894975 = sum of:
0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 3854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00894975 = score(doc=3854,freq=14.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3854, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3854)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Web search engines, such as Google and Bing, are constantly employing results from knowledge organization and various visualization features to improve their search services. Knowledge graph, a large repository of structured knowledge represented by formal languages such as RDF (Resource Description Framework), is used to support entity search feature of Google and Bing (Demartini, 2016). When a user searchs for an entity, such as a person, an organization, or a place in Google or Bing, it is likely that a knowledge cardwill be presented on the right side bar of the search engine result pages (SERPs). For example, when a user searches the entity Benedict Cumberbatch on Google, the knowledge card will show the basic structured information about this person, including his date of birth, height, spouse, parents, and his movies, etc. The knowledge card, which is used to present the result of entity search, is generated from knowledge graphs. Therefore, the quality of knowledge graphs is essential to the performance of entity search. However, studies on the quality of knowledge graphs from the angle of entity coverage are scant in the literature. This study aims to investigate the coverage of entities of knowledge graphs behind Google and Bing.
- Type
- a
-
Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016)
0.00
0.0018909799 = product of:
0.0037819599 = sum of:
0.0037819599 = product of:
0.0075639198 = sum of:
0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075639198 = score(doc=3144,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.
- Type
- a
-
Tetzchner, J. von: As a monopoly in search and advertising Google is not able to resist the misuse of power : is the Internet turning into a battlefield of propaganda? How Google should be regulated (2017)
0.00
0.001775911 = product of:
0.003551822 = sum of:
0.003551822 = product of:
0.007103644 = sum of:
0.007103644 = weight(_text_:a in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007103644 = score(doc=3891,freq=18.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.13376464 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- "Let us start with your positive experiences with Google. I have known Google longer than most. At Opera, we were the first to add their search into the browser interface, enabling it directly from the search box and the address field. At that time, Google was an up-and-coming geeky company. I remember vividly meeting with Google's co-founder Larry Page, his relaxed dress code and his love for the Danger device, which he played with throughout our meeting. Later, I met with the other co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, and got positive vibes. My first impression of Google was that it was a likeable company. Our cooperation with Google was a good one. Integrating their search into Opera helped us deliver a better service to our users and generated revenue that paid the bills. We helped Google grow, along with others that followed in our footsteps and integrated Google search into their browsers. Then the picture for you and for opera darkened. Yes, then things changed. Google increased their proximity with the Mozilla foundation. They also introduced new services such as Google Docs. These services were great, gained quick popularity, but also exposed the darker side of Google. Not only were these services made to be incompatible with Opera, but also encouraged users to switch their browsers. I brought this up with Sergey Brin, in vain. For millions of Opera users to be able to access these services, we had to hide our browser's identity. The browser sniffing situation only worsened after Google started building their own browser, Chrome. ...
How should Google be regulated? We should limit the amount of information that is being collected. In particular we should look at information that is being collected across sites. It should not be legal to combine data from multiple sites and services. The fact that these sites and services are using the same underlying technology does not change the fact that the user's dealings is with a site at a time and each site should not have the right to share the data with others. I believe this the cornerstone of laws in many countries today, but these laws need to be enforced. Data about us is ours alone and it should not be possible to sell it. We should also limit the ability to target users individually. In the past, ads on sites were ads on sites. You might know what kind of users visited a site and you would place tech ads on tech sites and fashion ads on fashion sites. Now the ads follow you individually. That should be made illegal as it uses data collected from multiple sources and invades our privacy. I also believe there should be regulation as to how location data is used and any information related to our mobile devices. In addition, regulators need to be vigilant as to how companies that have monopoly power use their power. That kind of goes without saying. Companies with monopoly powers should not be able to use those powers when competing in an open market or using their monopoly services to limit competition."
- Type
- a
-
Hurz, S.: Google verfolgt Nutzer, auch wenn sie explizit widersprechen (2018)
0.00
0.0016913437 = product of:
0.0033826875 = sum of:
0.0033826875 = product of:
0.006765375 = sum of:
0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006765375 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Lewandowski, D.: Wie "Next Generation Search Systems" die Suche auf eine neue Ebene heben und die Informationswelt verändern (2017)
0.00
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = product of:
0.0054123 = sum of:
0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054123 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Franke-Maier, M.; Rüter, C.: Discover Sacherschließung! : Was machen suchmaschinenbasierte Systeme mit unseren inhaltlichen Metadaten? (2015)
0.00
0.0011839407 = product of:
0.0023678814 = sum of:
0.0023678814 = product of:
0.0047357627 = sum of:
0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 1706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047357627 = score(doc=1706,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1706, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1706)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Griesbaum, J.: Online Marketing : Ein Lehr- und Forschungsgebiet der Informationswissenschaft? (2019)
0.00
0.0011839407 = product of:
0.0023678814 = sum of:
0.0023678814 = product of:
0.0047357627 = sum of:
0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 5418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047357627 = score(doc=5418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5418)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Sander-Beuermann, W.: Generationswechsel bei MetaGer : ein Rückblick und Ausblick (2019)
0.00
0.0010148063 = product of:
0.0020296127 = sum of:
0.0020296127 = product of:
0.0040592253 = sum of:
0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0040592253 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Günther, M.: Vermitteln Suchmaschinen vollständige Bilder aktueller Themen? : Untersuchung der Gewichtung inhaltlicher Aspekte von Suchmaschinenergebnissen in Deutschland und den USA (2016)
0.00
8.4567186E-4 = product of:
0.0016913437 = sum of:
0.0016913437 = product of:
0.0033826875 = sum of:
0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 3068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033826875 = score(doc=3068,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3068, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3068)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Söhler, M.: Schluss mit Schema F (2011)
0.00
6.765375E-4 = product of:
0.001353075 = sum of:
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 4439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00270615 = score(doc=4439,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 4439, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4439)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
mho: Google erweitert Suchfunktion um Informationsdatenbank (2012)
0.00
6.765375E-4 = product of:
0.001353075 = sum of:
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = weight(_text_:a in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00270615 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Söhler, M.: "Dumm wie Google" war gestern : semantische Suche im Netz (2011)
0.00
5.9197034E-4 = product of:
0.0011839407 = sum of:
0.0011839407 = product of:
0.0023678814 = sum of:
0.0023678814 = weight(_text_:a in 4440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0023678814 = score(doc=4440,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.044588212 = fieldWeight in 4440, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4440)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
