Search (130 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.05 
    0.048416097 = product of:
  0.09683219 = sum of:
    0.09683219 = sum of:
      0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009471525 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6438, 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=6438)
      0.087360665 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.087360665 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
    Type
    a
  2. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.03 
    0.02964738 = product of:
  0.05929476 = sum of:
    0.05929476 = sum of:
      0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009374379 = score(doc=261,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = 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)
    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
    Type
    a
  3. Leininger, K.: Interindexer consistency in PsychINFO (2000) 0.02 
    0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=2552,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2552, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2552)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=2552,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2552, 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=2552)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to examine interindexer consistency (the degree to which indexers, when assigning terms to a chosen record, will choose the same terms to reflect that record) in the PsycINFO database using 60 records that were inadvertently processed twice between 1996 and 1998. Five aspects of interindexer consistency were analysed. Two methods were used to calculate interindexer consistency: one posited by Hooper (1965) and the other by Rollin (1981). Aspects analysed were: checktag consistency (66.24% using Hooper's calculation and 77.17% using Rollin's); major-to-all term consistency (49.31% and 62.59% respectively); overall indexing consistency (49.02% and 63.32%); classification code consistency (44.17% and 45.00%); and major-to-major term consistency (43.24% and 56.09%). The average consistency across all categories was 50.4% using Hooper's method and 60.83% using Rollin's. Although comparison with previous studies is difficult due to methodological variations in the overall study of indexing consistency and the specific characteristics of the database, results generally support previous findings when trends and similar studies are analysed.
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Type
    a
  4. King, D.W.: Blazing new trails : in celebration of an audacious career (2000) 0.02 
    0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=1184,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I had the distinct pleasure of working with Pauline Atherton (Cochrane) during the 1960s, a period that can be considered the heyday of automated information system design and evaluation in the United States. I first met Pauline at the 1962 American Documentation Institute annual meeting in North Hollywood, Florida. My company, Westat Research Analysts, had recently been awarded a contract by the U.S. Patent Office to provide statistical support for the design of experiments with automated information retrieval systems. I was asked to attend the meeting to learn more about information retrieval systems and to begin informing others of U.S. Patent Office activities in this area. At one session, Pauline and I questioned a speaker about the research that he presented. Pauline's questions concerned the logic of their approach and mine, the statistical aspects. After the session, she came over to talk to me and we began a professional and personal friendship that continues to this day. During the 1960s, Pauline was involved in several important information-retrieval projects including a series of studies for the American Institute of Physics, a dissertation examining the relevance of retrieved documents, and development and evaluation of an online information-retrieval system. I had the opportunity to work with Pauline and her colleagues an four of those projects and will briefly describe her work in the 1960s.
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Type
    a
  5. Petrelli, D.: On the role of user-centred evaluation in the advancement of interactive information retrieval (2008) 0.02 
    0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=2026,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the role of user-centred evaluations as an essential method for researching interactive information retrieval. It draws mainly on the work carried out during the Clarity Project where different user-centred evaluations were run during the lifecycle of a cross-language information retrieval system. The iterative testing was not only instrumental to the development of a usable system, but it enhanced our knowledge of the potential, impact, and actual use of cross-language information retrieval technology. Indeed the role of the user evaluation was dual: by testing a specific prototype it was possible to gain a micro-view and assess the effectiveness of each component of the complex system; by cumulating the result of all the evaluations (in total 43 people were involved) it was possible to build a macro-view of how cross-language retrieval would impact on users and their tasks. By showing the richness of results that can be acquired, this paper aims at stimulating researchers into considering user-centred evaluations as a flexible, adaptable and comprehensive technique for investigating non-traditional information access systems.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38
    Type
    a
  6. Larsen, B.; Ingwersen, P.; Lund, B.: Data fusion according to the principle of polyrepresentation (2009) 0.02 
    0.015186245 = product of:
  0.03037249 = sum of:
    0.03037249 = sum of:
      0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054123 = score(doc=2752,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We report data fusion experiments carried out on the four best-performing retrieval models from TREC 5. Three were conceptually/algorithmically very different from one another; one was algorithmically similar to one of the former. The objective of the test was to observe the performance of the 11 logical data fusion combinations compared to the performance of the four individual models and their intermediate fusions when following the principle of polyrepresentation. This principle is based on cognitive IR perspective (Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005) and implies that each retrieval model is regarded as a representation of a unique interpretation of information retrieval (IR). It predicts that only fusions of very different, but equally good, IR models may outperform each constituent as well as their intermediate fusions. Two kinds of experiments were carried out. One tested restricted fusions, which entails that only the inner disjoint overlap documents between fused models are ranked. The second set of experiments was based on traditional data fusion methods. The experiments involved the 30 TREC 5 topics that contain more than 44 relevant documents. In all tests, the Borda and CombSUM scoring methods were used. Performance was measured by precision and recall, with document cutoff values (DCVs) at 100 and 15 documents, respectively. Results show that restricted fusions made of two, three, or four cognitively/algorithmically very different retrieval models perform significantly better than do the individual models at DCV100. At DCV15, however, the results of polyrepresentative fusion were less predictable. The traditional fusion method based on polyrepresentation principles demonstrates a clear picture of performance at both DCV levels and verifies the polyrepresentation predictions for data fusion in IR. Data fusion improves retrieval performance over their constituent IR models only if the models all are quite conceptually/algorithmically dissimilar and equally and well performing, in that order of importance.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:48:28
    Type
    a
  7. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.01 
    0.012480095 = product of:
  0.02496019 = sum of:
    0.02496019 = product of:
      0.04992038 = sum of:
        0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04992038 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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.
  8. Rao, A.; Lu, A.; Meier, E.; Ahmed, S.; Pliske, D.: Query processing in TREC6 (2000) 0.00 
    0.004101291 = product of:
  0.008202582 = sum of:
    0.008202582 = product of:
      0.016405163 = sum of:
        0.016405163 = weight(_text_:a in 6420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016405163 = score(doc=6420,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 6420, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  9. Foster, A.; Ford, N.: Serendipity and information seeking : an empirical study (2003) 0.00 
    0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 1083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=1083,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 1083, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  10. Della Mea, V.; Mizzaro, S.: Measuring retrieval effectiveness : a new proposal and a first experimental validation (2004) 0.00 
    0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=2263,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Most common effectiveness measures for information retrieval systems are based an the assumptions of binary relevance (either a document is relevant to a given query or it is not) and binary retrieval (either a document is retrieved or it is not). In this article, these assumptions are questioned, and a new measure named ADM (average distance measure) is proposed, discussed from a conceptual point of view, and experimentally validated an Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) data. Both conceptual analysis and experimental evidence demonstrate ADM's adequacy in measuring the effectiveness of information retrieval systems. Some potential problems about precision and recall are also highlighted and discussed.
    Type
    a
  11. Beaulieu, M.: Approaches to user-based studies in information seeking and retrieval : a Sheffield perspective (2003) 0.00 
    0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 4692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=4692,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4692, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  12. Bar-Ilan, J.: Methods for measuring search engine performance over time (2002) 0.00 
    0.0033143433 = product of:
  0.0066286866 = sum of:
    0.0066286866 = product of:
      0.013257373 = sum of:
        0.013257373 = weight(_text_:a in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013257373 = score(doc=305,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study introduces methods for evaluating search engine performance over a time period. Several measures are defined, which as a whole describe search engine functionality over time. The necessary setup for such studies is described, and the use of these measures is illustrated through a specific example. The set of measures introduced here may serve as a guideline for the search engines for testing and improving their functionality. We recommend setting up a standard suite of measures for evaluating search engine performance.
    Type
    a
  13. Zhang, X.: Collaborative relevance judgment : a group consensus method for evaluating user search performance (2002) 0.00 
    0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=250,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Relevance judgment has traditionally been considered a personal and subjective matter. A user's search and the search result are treated as an isolated event. To consider the collaborative nature of information retrieval (IR) in a group/organization or even societal context, this article proposes a method that measures relevance based on group/peer consensus. The method can be used in IR experiments. In this method, the relevance of a document is decided by group consensus, or more specifically, by the number of users (or experiment participants) who retrieve it for the same search question. The more users who retrieve it, the more relevant the document will be considered. A user's search performance can be measured by a relevance score based on this notion. The article reports the results of an experiment using this method to compare the search performance of different types of users. Related issues with the method and future directions are also discussed
    Type
    a
  14. Beall, J.; Kafadar, K.: Measuring typographical errors' impact on retrieval in bibliographic databases (2007) 0.00 
    0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=261,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Typographical errors can block access to records in online catalogs; but, when a word contains a typo and is also spelled correctly elsewhere in the same record, access may not be blocked. To quantify the effect of typographical errors in records on information retrieval, we conducted a study to measure the proportion of records that contain a typographical error but that do not also contain a correct spelling of the same word. This article presents the experimental design, results of the study, and a statistical analysis of the results.We find that the average proportion of records that are blocked by the presence of a typo (that is, records in which a correct spelling of the word does not also occur) ranges from 35% to 99%, depending upon the frequency of the word being searched and the likelihood of the word being misspelled.
    Type
    a
  15. Blandford, A.; Adams, A.; Attfield, S.; Buchanan, G.; Gow, J.; Makri, S.; Rimmer, J.; Warwick, C.: ¬The PRET A Rapporter framework : evaluating digital libraries from the perspective of information work (2008) 0.00 
    0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=2021,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The strongest tradition of IR systems evaluation has focused on system effectiveness; more recently, there has been a growing interest in evaluation of Interactive IR systems, balancing system and user-oriented evaluation criteria. In this paper we shift the focus to considering how IR systems, and particularly digital libraries, can be evaluated to assess (and improve) their fit with users' broader work activities. Taking this focus, we answer a different set of evaluation questions that reveal more about the design of interfaces, user-system interactions and how systems may be deployed in the information working context. The planning and conduct of such evaluation studies share some features with the established methods for conducting IR evaluation studies, but come with a shift in emphasis; for example, a greater range of ethical considerations may be pertinent. We present the PRET A Rapporter framework for structuring user-centred evaluation studies and illustrate its application to three evaluation studies of digital library systems.
    Type
    a
  16. Carterette, B.: Test collections (2009) 0.00 
    0.0030255679 = product of:
  0.0060511357 = sum of:
    0.0060511357 = product of:
      0.012102271 = sum of:
        0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 3891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012102271 = score(doc=3891,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 3891, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Research and development of search engines and other information retrieval (IR) systems proceeds by a cycle of design, implementation, and experimentation, with the results of each experiment influencing design decisions in the next iteration of the cycle. Batch experiments on test collections help ensure that this process goes as smoothly and as quickly as possible. A test collection comprises a collection of documents, a set of information needs, and judgments of the relevance of documents to those needs.
    Type
    a
  17. Brown, E.W.; Carmel, D.; Franz, M.; Ittycheriah, A.; Kanungo, T.; Maarek, Y.; McCarley, J.S.; Mack, R.L.; Prager, J.M.; Smith, J.R.; Soffer, A.; Zien, J.Y.; Marwick, A.D.: IBM research activities at TREC (2005) 0.00 
    0.0029294936 = product of:
  0.005858987 = sum of:
    0.005858987 = product of:
      0.011717974 = sum of:
        0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 5093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011717974 = score(doc=5093,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 5093, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  18. Pirkola, A.; Järvelin, K.: Employing the resolution power of search keys (2001) 0.00 
    0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=5907,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = 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
  19. Robertson, S.E.; Walker, S.; Beaulieu, M.: Experimentation as a way of life : Okapi at TREC (2000) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 6030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=6030,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 6030, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  20. Schoger, A.; Frommer, J.: Heterogen - was nun? : Evaluierung heterogener bibliographischer Metadaten (2000) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=4465,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 109
  • d 20

Types

  • a 126
  • el 3
  • m 2
  • s 2
  • p 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications