Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Järvelin, K."
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Pirkola, A.; Järvelin, K.: Employing the resolution power of search keys (2001) 0.00 
    0.0026061484 = product of:
  0.0052122967 = sum of:
    0.0052122967 = product of:
      0.010424593 = sum of:
        0.010424593 = weight(_text_:a in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010424593 = score(doc=5907,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Search key resolution power is analyzed in the context of a request, i.e., among the set of search keys for the request. Methods of characterizing the resolution power of keys automatically are studied, and the effects search keys of varying resolution power have on retrieval effectiveness are analyzed. It is shown that it often is possible to identify the best key of a query while the discrimination between the remaining keys presents problems. It is also shown that query performance is improved by suitably using the best key in a structured query. The tests were run with InQuery in a subcollection of the TREC collection, which contained some 515,000 documents
    Type
    a
  2. Talvensaari, T.; Laurikkala, J.; Järvelin, K.; Juhola, M.: ¬A study on automatic creation of a comparable document collection in cross-language information retrieval (2006) 0.00 
    0.002279905 = product of:
  0.00455981 = sum of:
    0.00455981 = product of:
      0.00911962 = sum of:
        0.00911962 = weight(_text_:a in 5601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00911962 = score(doc=5601,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 5601, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - To present a method for creating a comparable document collection from two document collections in different languages. Design/methodology/approach - The best query keys were extracted from a Finnish source collection (articles of the newspaper Aamulehti) with the relative average term frequency formula. The keys were translated into English with a dictionary-based query translation program. The resulting lists of words were used as queries that were run against the target collection (Los Angeles Times articles) with the nearest neighbor method. The documents were aligned with unrestricted and date-restricted alignment schemes, which were also combined. Findings - The combined alignment scheme was found the best, when the relatedness of the document pairs was assessed with a five-degree relevance scale. Of the 400 document pairs, roughly 40 percent were highly or fairly related and 75 percent included at least lexical similarity. Research limitations/implications - The number of alignment pairs was small due to the short common time period of the two collections, and their geographical (and thus, topical) remoteness. In future, our aim is to build larger comparable corpora in various languages and use them as source of translation knowledge for the purposes of cross-language information retrieval (CLIR). Practical implications - Readily available parallel corpora are scarce. With this method, two unrelated document collections can relatively easily be aligned to create a CLIR resource. Originality/value - The method can be applied to weakly linked collections and morphologically complex languages, such as Finnish.
    Type
    a
  3. Järvelin, K.: Evaluation (2011) 0.00 
    0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  4. Kekäläinen, J.; Järvelin, K.: Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation (2002) 0.00 
    0.0015199365 = product of:
  0.003039873 = sum of:
    0.003039873 = product of:
      0.006079746 = sum of:
        0.006079746 = weight(_text_:a in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006079746 = score(doc=5225,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Kekalainen and Jarvelin use what they term generalized, nonbinary recall and precision measures where recall is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the sum of relevance scores of all documents in the data base, and precision is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the number of documents where the relevance scores are real numbers between zero and one. Using the In-Query system and a text data base of 53,893 newspaper articles with 30 queries selected from those for which four relevance categories to provide recall measures were available, search results were evaluated by four judges. Searches were done by average key term weight, Boolean expression, and by average term weight where the terms are grouped by a synonym operator, and for each case with and without expansion of the original terms. Use of higher standards of relevance appears to increase the superiority of the best method. Some methods do a better job of getting the highly relevant documents but do not increase retrieval of marginal ones. There is evidence that generalized precision provides more equitable results, while binary precision provides undeserved merit to some methods. Generally graded relevance measures seem to provide additional insight into IR evaluation.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years