Search (64 results, page 1 of 4)

0.048998144 = product of:
  0.07349721 = sum of:
    0.038346052 = product of:
      0.076692104 = sum of:
        0.076692104 = weight(_text_:t in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076692104 = score(doc=3824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.43524727 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03515116 = product of:
      0.07030232 = sum of:
        0.07030232 = weight(_text_:i in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07030232 = score(doc=3824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Vocabulary as a central concept in digital libraries: interdisciplinary concepts, challenges, and opportunities : proceedings of the Third International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Science (COLIS3), Dubrovnik, Croatia, 23-26 May 1999. Ed. by T. Arpanac et al

0.020451227 = product of:
  0.06135368 = sum of:
    0.06135368 = product of:
      0.12270736 = sum of:
        0.12270736 = weight(_text_:t in 3907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12270736 = score(doc=3907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.69639564 = fieldWeight in 3907, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.017894823 = product of:
  0.05368447 = sum of:
    0.05368447 = product of:
      0.10736894 = sum of:
        0.10736894 = weight(_text_:t in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10736894 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.60934615 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.016160224 = product of:
  0.048480667 = sum of:
    0.048480667 = product of:
      0.096961334 = sum of:
        0.096961334 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096961334 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476

0.014140195 = product of:
  0.042420585 = sum of:
    0.042420585 = product of:
      0.08484117 = sum of:
        0.08484117 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08484117 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, 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=2134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:32:22

0.014140195 = product of:
  0.042420585 = sum of:
    0.042420585 = product of:
      0.08484117 = sum of:
        0.08484117 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08484117 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.014060467 = product of:
  0.0421814 = sum of:
    0.0421814 = product of:
      0.0843628 = sum of:
        0.0843628 = weight(_text_:i in 6431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0843628 = score(doc=6431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 6431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.013256334 = product of:
  0.039769 = sum of:
    0.039769 = product of:
      0.079538 = sum of:
        0.079538 = weight(_text_:i in 5954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079538 = score(doc=5954,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.4714662 = fieldWeight in 5954, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Approximately 91 million American adults use the Internet on a typical day The number-one Internet activity is reading and writing e-mail. Search engine use is next in line and continues to increase in popularity. In fact, survey findings indicate that nearly 60 million American adults use search engines on a given day. Even though there are many Internet search engines, Google, Yahoo!, and MSN receive over 81% of all search requests. Despite claims that the quality of search provided by Yahoo! and MSN now equals that of Google, Google continues to thrive as the search engine of choice, receiving over 46% of all search requests, nearly double the volume of Yahoo! and over four times that of MSN. I use Google's search engine on a daily basis and rarely request information from other search engines. One day, I decided to visit the homepages of Google. Yahoo!, and MSN to compare the quality of search results. Coffee was on my mind that day, so I entered the simple query "coffee" in the search box at each homepage. Table 1 shows the top ten (unsponsored) results returned by each search engine. Although ordered differently, two webpages, www.peets.com and www.coffeegeek.com, appear in all three top ten lists. In addition, each pairing of top ten lists has two additional results in common. Depending on the information I hoped to obtain about coffee by using the search engines, I could argue that any one of the three returned better results: however, I was not looking for a particular webpage, so all three listings of search results seemed of equal quality. Thus, I plan to continue using Google. My decision is indicative of the problem Yahoo!, MSN, and other search engine companies face in the quest to obtain a larger percentage of Internet search volume. Search engine users are loyal to one or a few search engines and are generally happy with search results. Thus, as long as Google continues to provide results deemed high in quality, Google likely will remain the top search engine. But what set Google apart from its competitors in the first place? The answer is PageRank. In this article I explain this simple mathematical algorithm that revolutionized Web search.

0.012120167 = product of:
  0.0363605 = sum of:
    0.0363605 = product of:
      0.072721 = sum of:
        0.072721 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072721 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:44

0.012120167 = product of:
  0.0363605 = sum of:
    0.0363605 = product of:
      0.072721 = sum of:
        0.072721 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072721 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:56

0.011069551 = product of:
  0.033208653 = sum of:
    0.033208653 = product of:
      0.06641731 = sum of:
        0.06641731 = weight(_text_:t in 4120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06641731 = score(doc=4120,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.37693518 = fieldWeight in 4120, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We studied the effectiveness of a new class of context-dependent term weights for information retrieval. Unlike the traditional term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF), the new weighting of a term t in a document d depends not only on the occurrence statistics of t alone but also on the terms found within a text window (or "document-context") centered on t. We introduce a Boost and Discount (B&D) procedure which utilizes partial relevance information to compute the context-dependent term weights of query terms according to a logistic regression model. We investigate the effectiveness of the new term weights compared with the context-independent BM25 weights in the setting of relevance feedback. We performed experiments with title queries of the TREC-6, -7, -8, and 2005 collections, comparing the residual Mean Average Precision (MAP) measures obtained using B&D term weights and those obtained by a baseline using BM25 weights. Given either 10 or 20 relevance judgments of the top retrieved documents, using the new term weights yields improvement over the baseline for all collections tested. The MAP obtained with the new weights has relative improvement over the baseline by 3.3 to 15.2%, with statistical significance at the 95% confidence level across all four collections.

0.010225614 = product of:
  0.03067684 = sum of:
    0.03067684 = product of:
      0.06135368 = sum of:
        0.06135368 = weight(_text_:t in 3500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06135368 = score(doc=3500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 3500, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.010225614 = product of:
  0.03067684 = sum of:
    0.03067684 = product of:
      0.06135368 = sum of:
        0.06135368 = weight(_text_:t in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06135368 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.010225614 = product of:
  0.03067684 = sum of:
    0.03067684 = product of:
      0.06135368 = sum of:
        0.06135368 = weight(_text_:t in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06135368 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.009038251 = product of:
  0.02711475 = sum of:
    0.02711475 = product of:
      0.0542295 = sum of:
        0.0542295 = weight(_text_:t in 5169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0542295 = score(doc=5169,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.3077663 = fieldWeight in 5169, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ruthven, Mounia, and van Rijsbergen rank and select terms for query expansion using information gathered on searcher evaluation behavior. Using the TREC Financial Times and Los Angeles Times collections and search topics from TREC-6 placed in simulated work situations, six student subjects each preformed three searches on an experimental system and three on a control system with instructions to search by natural language expression in any way they found comfortable. Searching was analyzed for behavior differences between experimental and control situations, and for effectiveness and perceptions. In three experiments paired t-tests were the analysis tool with controls being a no relevance feedback system, a standard ranking for automatic expansion system, and a standard ranking for interactive expansion while the experimental systems based ranking upon user information on temporal relevance and partial relevance. Two further experiments compare using user behavior (number assessed relevant and similarity of relevant documents) to choose a query expansion technique against a non-selective technique and finally the effect of providing the user with knowledge of the process. When partial relevance data and time of assessment data are incorporated in term ranking more relevant documents were recovered in fewer iterations, however retrieval effectiveness overall was not improved. The subjects, none-the-less, rated the suggested terms as more useful and used them more heavily. Explanations of what the feedback techniques were doing led to higher use of the techniques.

0.008947412 = product of:
  0.026842235 = sum of:
    0.026842235 = product of:
      0.05368447 = sum of:
        0.05368447 = weight(_text_:t in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05368447 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17620352 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.30467308 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.008201938 = product of:
  0.024605814 = sum of:
    0.024605814 = product of:
      0.04921163 = sum of:
        0.04921163 = weight(_text_:i in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04921163 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1076, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1076)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.008201938 = product of:
  0.024605814 = sum of:
    0.024605814 = product of:
      0.04921163 = sum of:
        0.04921163 = weight(_text_:i in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04921163 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.008201938 = product of:
  0.024605814 = sum of:
    0.024605814 = product of:
      0.04921163 = sum of:
        0.04921163 = weight(_text_:i in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04921163 = score(doc=4548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16870351 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

I believe that Google Scholar is the most popular academic indexing way for researchers and citations. However, some other indexing institutions may be more professional than Google Scholar but not as popular as Google Scholar. Other indexing websites like Scopus and Clarivate are providing more statistical figures for scholars, institutions or even journals. On account of publication citations, always Google Scholar shows higher citations for a paper than other indexing websites since Google Scholar consider most of the publication platforms so he can easily count the citations. While other databases just consider the citations come from those journals that are already indexed in their database

0.008080112 = product of:
  0.024240334 = sum of:
    0.024240334 = product of:
      0.048480667 = sum of:
        0.048480667 = weight(_text_:22 in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048480667 = score(doc=5108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1566313 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04472842 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5108, 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=5108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2007 18:30:22