Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Hider, P.: ¬The search value added by professional indexing to a bibliographic database (2017) 0.00
    0.0028047764 = product of:
      0.005609553 = sum of:
        0.005609553 = product of:
          0.011219106 = sum of:
            0.011219106 = weight(_text_:a in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011219106 = score(doc=3868,freq=22.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
                  4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                    22.0 = termFreq=22.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This paper reports on an analysis of the loss levels that would result if a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI), were missing the subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by its professional indexers, employing the methodology developed by Gross and Taylor (2005), and later by Gross et al. (2015). The results indicate that AEI users would lose a similar proportion of hits per query to that experienced by library catalog users: on average, 27% of the resources found by a sample of keyword queries on the AEI database would not have been found without the subject indexing, based on the Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors (ATED). The paper also discusses the methodological limitations of these studies, pointing out that real-life users might still find some of the resources missed by a particular query through follow-up searches, while additional resources might also be found through iterative searching on the subject vocabulary. The paper goes on to describe a new research design, based on a before - and - after experiment, which addresses some of these limitations. It is argued that this alternative design will provide a more realistic picture of the value that professionally assigned subject indexing and controlled subject vocabularies can add to literature searching of a more scholarly and thorough kind.
    Type
    a
  2. Schirrmeister, N.-P.; Keil, S.: Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen (2012) 0.00
    0.0023435948 = product of:
      0.0046871896 = sum of:
        0.0046871896 = product of:
          0.009374379 = sum of:
            0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009374379 = score(doc=3097,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3097, 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=3097)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Das Projekt "Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen" (AIIRE) bietet eine Softwareinfrastruktur zur Unterstützung von Information Retrieval-Evaluationen (IR-Evaluationen). Die Infrastruktur basiert auf einem Tool-Kit, das bei GESIS im Rahmen des DFG-Projekts IRM entwickelt wurde. Ziel ist es, ein System zu bieten, das zur Forschung und Lehre am Fachbereich Media für IR-Evaluationen genutzt werden kann. This paper describes some aspects of a project called "Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen" (AIIRE). Its goal is to build a software-infrastructure which supports the evaluation of information retrieval algorithms.
    Type
    a
  3. 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
  4. 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