Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Järvelin, K."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.: Explanation in information seeking and retrieval (2005) 0.01 
    0.012342878 = product of:
  0.024685755 = sum of:
    0.024685755 = product of:
      0.04937151 = sum of:
        0.04937151 = weight(_text_:r in 643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04937151 = score(doc=643,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.32712364 = fieldWeight in 643, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval (IR) is a research area both within Computer Science and Information Science. It has by and large two communities: a Computer Science oriented experimental approach and a user-oriented Information Science approach with a Social Science background. The communities hold a critical stance towards each other (e.g., Ingwersen, 1996), the latter suspecting the realism of the former, and the former suspecting the usefulness of the latter. Within Information Science the study of information seeking (IS) also has a Social Science background. There is a lot of research in each of these particular areas of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R). However, the three communities do not really communicate with each other. Why is this, and could the relationships be otherwise? Do the communities in fact belong together? Or perhaps each community is better off forgetting about the existence of the other two? We feel that the relationships between the research areas have not been properly analyzed. One way to analyze the relationships is to examine what each research area is trying to find out: which phenomena are being explained and how. We believe that IS&R research would benefit from being analytic about its frameworks, models and theories, not just at the level of meta-theories, but also much more concretely at the level of study designs. Over the years there have been calls for more context in the study of IS&R. Work tasks as well as cultural activities/interests have been proposed as the proper context for information access. For example, Wersig (1973) conceptualized information needs from the tasks perspective. He argued that in order to learn about information needs and seeking, one needs to take into account the whole active professional role of the individuals being investigated. Byström and Järvelin (1995) analysed IS processes in the light of tasks of varying complexity. Ingwersen (1996) discussed the role of tasks and their descriptions and problematic situations from a cognitive perspective on IR. Most recently, Vakkari (2003) reviewed task-based IR and Järvelin and Ingwersen (2004) proposed the extension of IS&R research toward the task context. Therefore there is much support to the task context, but how should it be applied in IS&R?
  2. Hansen, P.; Järvelin, K.: Collaborative Information Retrieval in an information-intensive domain (2005) 0.01 
    0.011709481 = product of:
  0.023418961 = sum of:
    0.023418961 = product of:
      0.046837922 = sum of:
        0.046837922 = weight(_text_:r in 1040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046837922 = score(doc=1040,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 1040, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article we investigate the expressions of collaborative activities within information seeking and retrieval processes (IS&R). Generally, information seeking and retrieval is regarded as an individual and isolated process in IR research. We assume that an IS&R situation is not merely an individual effort, but inherently involves various collaborative activities. We present empirical results from a real-life and information-intensive setting within the patent domain, showing that the patent task performance process involves highly collaborative aspects throughout the stages of the information seeking and retrieval process. Furthermore, we show that these activities may be categorised and related to different stages in an information seeking and retrieval process. Therefore, the assumption that information retrieval performance is purely individual needs to be reconsidered. Finally, we also propose a refined IR framework involving collaborative aspects.
  3. Järvelin, K.; Kristensen, J.; Niemi, T.; Sormunen, E.; Keskustalo, H.: ¬A deductive data model for query expansion (1996) 0.01 
    0.009265927 = product of:
  0.018531853 = sum of:
    0.018531853 = product of:
      0.037063707 = sum of:
        0.037063707 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037063707 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al
  4. Saastamoinen, M.; Järvelin, K.: Search task features in work tasks of varying types and complexity (2017) 0.01 
    0.009265927 = product of:
  0.018531853 = sum of:
    0.018531853 = product of:
      0.037063707 = sum of:
        0.037063707 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037063707 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.
  5. Lehtokangas, R.; Keskustalo, H.; Järvelin, K.: Experiments with transitive dictionary translation and pseudo-relevance feedback using graded relevance assessments (2008) 0.01 
    0.0082798535 = product of:
  0.016559707 = sum of:
    0.016559707 = product of:
      0.033119414 = sum of:
        0.033119414 = weight(_text_:r in 1349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033119414 = score(doc=1349,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 1349, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  6. Näppilä, T.; Järvelin, K.; Niemi, T.: ¬A tool for data cube construction from structurally heterogeneous XML documents (2008) 0.01 
    0.0077216057 = product of:
  0.015443211 = sum of:
    0.015443211 = product of:
      0.030886423 = sum of:
        0.030886423 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030886423 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, 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=1369)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    9. 2.2008 17:22:42
  7. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.01 
    0.0077216057 = product of:
  0.015443211 = sum of:
    0.015443211 = product of:
      0.030886423 = sum of:
        0.030886423 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030886423 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
  8. Kettunen, K.; Kunttu, T.; Järvelin, K.: To stem or lemmatize a highly inflectional language in a probabilistic IR environment? (2005) 0.01 
    0.006899878 = product of:
  0.013799756 = sum of:
    0.013799756 = product of:
      0.027599512 = sum of:
        0.027599512 = weight(_text_:r in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027599512 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - To show that stem generation compares well with lemmatization as a morphological tool for a highly inflectional language for IR purposes in a best-match retrieval system. Design/methodology/approach - Effects of three different morphological methods - lemmatization, stemming and stem production - for Finnish are compared in a probabilistic IR environment (INQUERY). Evaluation is done using a four-point relevance scale which is partitioned differently in different test settings. Findings - Results show that stem production, a lighter method than morphological lemmatization, compares well with lemmatization in a best-match IR environment. Differences in performance between stem production and lemmatization are small and they are not statistically significant in most of the tested settings. It is also shown that hitherto a rather neglected method of morphological processing for Finnish, stemming, performs reasonably well although the stemmer used - a Porter stemmer implementation - is far from optimal for a morphologically complex language like Finnish. In another series of tests, the effects of compound splitting and derivational expansion of queries are tested. Practical implications - Usefulness of morphological lemmatization and stem generation for IR purposes can be estimated with many factors. On the average P-R level they seem to behave very close to each other in a probabilistic IR system. Thus, the choice of the used method with highly inflectional languages needs to be estimated along other dimensions too. Originality/value - Results are achieved using Finnish as an example of a highly inflectional language. The results are of interest for anyone who is interested in processing of morphological variation of a highly inflected language for IR purposes.
  9. Lehtokangas, R.; Järvelin, K.: Consistency of textual expression in newspaper articles : an argument for semantically based query expansion (2001) 0.01 
    0.006899878 = product of:
  0.013799756 = sum of:
    0.013799756 = product of:
      0.027599512 = sum of:
        0.027599512 = weight(_text_:r in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027599512 = score(doc=4485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Years

Themes