Search (60 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.02 
    0.022013616 = product of:
  0.06604084 = sum of:
    0.042382717 = weight(_text_:und in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042382717 = score(doc=1484,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
    0.02365813 = product of:
      0.04731626 = sum of:
        0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04731626 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Dieses Whitepaper beschäftigt sich mit der Definition und Bewertung von Faktoren, die eine hohe Rangkorrelation-Koeffizienz mit organischen Suchergebnissen aufweisen und dient dem Zweck der tieferen Analyse von Suchmaschinen-Algorithmen. Die Datenerhebung samt Auswertung bezieht sich auf Ranking-Faktoren für Google-Deutschland im Jahr 2014. Zusätzlich wurden die Korrelationen und Faktoren unter anderem anhand von Durchschnitts- und Medianwerten sowie Entwicklungstendenzen zu den Vorjahren hinsichtlich ihrer Relevanz für vordere Suchergebnis-Positionen interpretiert.
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  2. Behnert, C.; Borst, T.: Neue Formen der Relevanz-Sortierung in bibliothekarischen Informationssystemen : das DFG-Projekt LibRank (2015) 0.02 
    0.018249499 = product of:
  0.054748494 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=5392,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
    0.042382717 = weight(_text_:und in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042382717 = score(doc=5392,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Das von der DFG geförderte Projekt LibRank erforscht neue Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme, die aufbauend auf Erkenntnissen aus dem Bereich Websuche qualitätsinduzierende Faktoren wie z. B. Aktualität, Popularität und Verfügbarkeit von einzelnen Medien berücksichtigen. Die konzipierten Verfahren werden im Kontext eines in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften häufig genutzten Rechercheportals (EconBiz) entwickelt und in einem Testsystem systematisch evaluiert. Es werden Rankingfaktoren, die für den Bibliotheksbereich von besonderem Interesse sind, vorgestellt und exemplarisch Probleme und Herausforderungen aufgezeigt.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 39(2015) H.3, S.384-393
  3. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing mit Katalogdaten : Alternative Sicht auf Suchergebnisse und Publikationsquellen durch Re-Ranking (2010) 0.02 
    0.015598023 = product of:
  0.046794068 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=4301,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
    0.034820955 = weight(_text_:und in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034820955 = score(doc=4301,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Nutzer erwarten für Literaturrecherchen in wissenschaftlichen Suchsystemen einen möglichst hohen Anteil an relevanten und qualitativen Dokumenten in den Trefferergebnissen. Insbesondere die Reihenfolge und Struktur der gelisteten Ergebnisse (Ranking) spielt, neben dem direkten Volltextzugriff auf die Dokumente, für viele Nutzer inzwischen eine entscheidende Rolle. Abgegrenzt wird Ranking oder Relevance Ranking von sogenannten Sortierungen zum Beispiel nach dem Erscheinungsjahr der Publikation, obwohl hier die Grenze zu »nach inhaltlicher Relevanz« gerankten Listen konzeptuell nicht sauber zu ziehen ist. Das Ranking von Dokumenten führt letztlich dazu, dass sich die Benutzer fokussiert mit den oberen Treffermengen eines Suchergebnisses beschäftigen. Der mittlere und untere Bereich eines Suchergebnisses wird häufig nicht mehr in Betracht gezogen. Aufgrund der Vielzahl an relevanten und verfügbaren Informationsquellen ist es daher notwendig, Kernbereiche in den Suchräumen zu identifizieren und diese anschließend dem Nutzer hervorgehoben zu präsentieren. Phillipp Mayr fasst hier die Ergebnisse seiner Dissertation zum Thema »Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing für die verteilte Suche in Digitalen Bibliotheken« zusammen.
  4. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing als Re-Ranking-Ansatz in Literaturinformationssystemen (2011) 0.02 
    0.015176678 = product of:
  0.045530032 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=4292,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
    0.034820955 = weight(_text_:und in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034820955 = score(doc=4292,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel wird ein Re-Ranking-Ansatz für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, der die Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur messbar verbessern kann. Das nichttextorientierte Rankingverfahren Bradfordizing wird eingeführt und anschließend im empirischen Teil des Artikels bzgl. der Effektivität für typische fachbezogene Recherche-Topics evaluiert. Dem Bradford Law of Scattering (BLS), auf dem Bradfordizing basiert, liegt zugrunde, dass sich die Literatur zu einem beliebigen Fachgebiet bzw. -thema in Zonen unterschiedlicher Dokumentenkonzentration verteilt. Dem Kernbereich mit hoher Konzentration der Literatur folgen Bereiche mit mittlerer und geringer Konzentration. Bradfordizing sortiert bzw. rankt eine Dokumentmenge damit nach den sogenannten Kernzeitschriften. Der Retrievaltest mit 164 intellektuell bewerteten Fragestellungen in Fachdatenbanken aus den Bereichen Sozial- und Politikwissenschaften, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin zeigt, dass die Dokumente der Kernzeitschriften signifikant häufiger relevant bewertet werden als Dokumente der zweiten Dokumentzone bzw. den Peripherie-Zeitschriften. Die Implementierung von Bradfordizing und weiteren Re-Rankingverfahren liefert unmittelbare Mehrwerte für den Nutzer.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 62(2011) H.1, S.3-10
  5. Hora, M.: Methoden für das Ranking in Discovery-Systemen (2018) 0.01 
    0.0146632595 = product of:
  0.043989778 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=4968,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
    0.03316972 = weight(_text_:und in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03316972 = score(doc=4968,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Discovery-Systeme bieten meist als Standardeinstellung eine Sortierung nach Relevanz an. Wie die Relevanz ermittelt wird, ist häufig intransparent. Dabei wären Kenntnisse darüber aus Nutzersicht ein wichtiger Faktor in der Informationskompetenz, während Bibliotheken sicherstellen sollten, dass das Ranking zum eigenen Bestand und Publikum passt. In diesem Aufsatz wird dargestellt, wie Discovery-Systeme Treffer auswählen und bewerten. Dazu gehören Indexierung, Prozessierung, Text-Matching und weitere Relevanzkriterien, z. B. Popularität oder Verfügbarkeit. Schließlich müssen alle betrachteten Kriterien zu einem zentralen Score zusammengefasst werden. Ein besonderer Fokus wird auf das Ranking von EBSCO Discovery Service, Primo und Summon gelegt.
  6. Fuhr, N.: Modelle im Information Retrieval (2013) 0.01 
    0.01414357 = product of:
  0.04243071 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
    0.03350648 = weight(_text_:und in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03350648 = score(doc=724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried
  7. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.01 
    0.01400142 = product of:
  0.042004257 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=5023,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.03316972 = weight(_text_:und in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03316972 = score(doc=5023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag beschreibt eine Studie zur Entwicklung und Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme. Dazu wurden mögliche Faktoren für das Relevanzranking ausgehend von den Verfahren in Websuchmaschinen identifiziert, auf den Bibliothekskontext übertragen und systematisch evaluiert. Mithilfe eines Testsystems, das auf dem ZBW-Informationsportal EconBiz und einer web-basierten Software zur Evaluierung von Suchsystemen aufsetzt, wurden verschiedene Relevanzfaktoren (z. B. Popularität in Verbindung mit Aktualität) getestet. Obwohl die getesteten Rankingverfahren auf einer theoretischen Ebene divers sind, konnten keine einheitlichen Verbesserungen gegenüber den Baseline-Rankings gemessen werden. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass eine Adaptierung des Rankings auf individuelle Nutzer bzw. Nutzungskontexte notwendig sein könnte, um eine höhere Performance zu erzielen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.14-23
  8. Walz, J.: Analyse der Übertragbarkeit allgemeiner Rankingfaktoren von Web-Suchmaschinen auf Discovery-Systeme (2018) 0.01 
    0.011261909 = product of:
  0.033785727 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 5744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=5744,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 5744, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5744)
    0.02843119 = weight(_text_:und in 5744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02843119 = score(doc=5744,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 5744, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5744)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Ziel: Ziel dieser Bachelorarbeit war es, die Übertragbarkeit der allgemeinen Rankingfaktoren, wie sie von Web-Suchmaschinen verwendet werden, auf Discovery-Systeme zu analysieren. Dadurch könnte das bisher hauptsächlich auf dem textuellen Abgleich zwischen Suchanfrage und Dokumenten basierende bibliothekarische Ranking verbessert werden. Methode: Hierfür wurden Faktoren aus den Gruppen Popularität, Aktualität, Lokalität, Technische Faktoren, sowie dem personalisierten Ranking diskutiert. Die entsprechenden Rankingfaktoren wurden nach ihrer Vorkommenshäufigkeit in der analysierten Literatur und der daraus abgeleiteten Wichtigkeit, ausgewählt. Ergebnis: Von den 23 untersuchten Rankingfaktoren sind 14 (61 %) direkt vom Ranking der Web-Suchmaschinen auf das Ranking der Discovery-Systeme übertragbar. Zu diesen zählen unter anderem das Klickverhalten, das Erstellungsdatum, der Nutzerstandort, sowie die Sprache. Sechs (26%) der untersuchten Faktoren sind dagegen nicht übertragbar (z.B. Aktualisierungsfrequenz und Ladegeschwindigkeit). Die Linktopologie, die Nutzungshäufigkeit, sowie die Aktualisierungsfrequenz sind mit entsprechenden Modifikationen übertragbar.
    Imprint
    Köln : Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften
  9. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01 
    0.011251582 = product of:
  0.033754744 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=1431,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
    0.02365813 = product of:
      0.04731626 = sum of:
        0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04731626 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Properties of a percentile-based rating scale needed in bibliometrics are formulated. Based on these properties, P100 was recently introduced as a new citation-rank approach (Bornmann, Leydesdorff, & Wang, 2013). In this paper, we conceptualize P100 and propose an improvement which we call P100'. Advantages and disadvantages of citation-rank indicators are noted.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  10. Ravana, S.D.; Rajagopal, P.; Balakrishnan, V.: Ranking retrieval systems using pseudo relevance judgments (2015) 0.01 
    0.010613645 = product of:
  0.031840935 = sum of:
    0.010929906 = weight(_text_:in in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010929906 = score(doc=2591,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
    0.02091103 = product of:
      0.04182206 = sum of:
        0.04182206 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04182206 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose In a system-based approach, replicating the web would require large test collections, and judging the relevancy of all documents per topic in creating relevance judgment through human assessors is infeasible. Due to the large amount of documents that requires judgment, there are possible errors introduced by human assessors because of disagreements. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This study explores exponential variation and document ranking methods that generate a reliable set of relevance judgments (pseudo relevance judgments) to reduce human efforts. These methods overcome problems with large amounts of documents for judgment while avoiding human disagreement errors during the judgment process. This study utilizes two key factors: number of occurrences of each document per topic from all the system runs; and document rankings to generate the alternate methods. Findings The effectiveness of the proposed method is evaluated using the correlation coefficient of ranked systems using mean average precision scores between the original Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) relevance judgments and pseudo relevance judgments. The results suggest that the proposed document ranking method with a pool depth of 100 could be a reliable alternative to reduce human effort and disagreement errors involved in generating TREC-like relevance judgments. Originality/value Simple methods proposed in this study show improvement in the correlation coefficient in generating alternate relevance judgment without human assessors while contributing to information retrieval evaluation.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    18. 9.2018 18:22:56
  11. Maylein, L.; Langenstein, A.: Neues vom Relevanz-Ranking im HEIDI-Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg : Perspektiven für bibliothekarische Dienstleistungen (2013) 0.01 
    0.010439968 = product of:
  0.0313199 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=775,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 775, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=775)
    0.018954126 = weight(_text_:und in 775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018954126 = score(doc=775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 775, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=775)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Das Relevanz-Ranking im Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg HEIDI, bereits 2009 in einem Beitrag in dieser Zeitschrift beschrieben, wurde in den letzten Jahren durch neue Entwicklungen und Methoden stark verbessert. Der Aufsatz beschreibt die Realisierung der bisherigen Rankingmaßnahmen unter der neu eingesetzten Suchmaschinenplattform SOLR. Weiter werden verschiedene neue Möglichkeiten für Rankinganpassungen unter SOLR sowie deren Einsatz im HEIDI-Katalog dargestellt.
  12. Oberhauser, O.: Relevance Ranking in den Online-Katalogen der "nächsten Generation" (2010) 0.01 
    0.010270989 = product of:
  0.030812964 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=4308,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
    0.020103889 = weight(_text_:und in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020103889 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Relevance Ranking in Online-Katalogen ist zwar kein neues Thema, doch liegt dazu nicht allzu viel Literatur vor, die das Prädikat "ernstzunehmen" verdient. Dies ist zum einen darin begründet, dass das Interesse an der Ausgabe ranggereihter Ergebnislisten auf Seiten aller Beteiligter (Bibliothekare, Softwarehersteller, Benutzer) traditionell gering war. Zum anderen ging die seit einigen Jahren populär gewordene Kritik an den bestehenden OPACs vielfach von einer unzureichenden Wissensbasis aus und produzierte oft nur polemische oder emotional gefärbte Beiträge, die zum Thema Ranking wenig beitrugen. ... Der hier beschriebene Test ist natürlich in keiner Weise erschöpfend oder repräsentativ. Dennoch gibt er, wie ich glaube, Anlass zu einiger Hoffnung. Er lässt vermuten, dass die "neuen" OPACs - zumindest was das Relevance Ranking betrifft - auf dem Weg in die richtige Richtung sind. Wie gut es wirklich gelingen wird, die Rankingleistung von Suchmaschinen wie Google, die unter völlig anderen Voraussetzungen arbeiten, einzuholen, wird aber erst die Zukunft zeigen.
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 63(2010) H.1/2, S.25-37
  13. Baloh, P.; Desouza, K.C.; Hackney, R.: Contextualizing organizational interventions of knowledge management systems : a design science perspectiveA domain analysis (2012) 0.01 
    0.007903522 = product of:
  0.023710564 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=241,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 241, 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=241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    We address how individuals' (workers) knowledge needs influence the design of knowledge management systems (KMS), enabling knowledge creation and utilization. It is evident that KMS technologies and activities are indiscriminately deployed in most organizations with little regard to the actual context of their adoption. Moreover, it is apparent that the extant literature pertaining to knowledge management projects is frequently deficient in identifying the variety of factors indicative for successful KMS. This presents an obvious business practice and research gap that requires a critical analysis of the necessary intervention that will actually improve how workers can leverage and form organization-wide knowledge. This research involved an extensive review of the literature, a grounded theory methodological approach and rigorous data collection and synthesis through an empirical case analysis (Parsons Brinckerhoff and Samsung). The contribution of this study is the formulation of a model for designing KMS based upon the design science paradigm, which aspires to create artifacts that are interdependent of people and organizations. The essential proposition is that KMS design and implementation must be contextualized in relation to knowledge needs and that these will differ for various organizational settings. The findings present valuable insights and further understanding of the way in which KMS design efforts should be focused.
    Date
    11. 6.2012 14:22:34
  14. Soulier, L.; Jabeur, L.B.; Tamine, L.; Bahsoun, W.: On ranking relevant entities in heterogeneous networks using a language-based model (2013) 0.01 
    0.007032239 = product of:
  0.021096716 = sum of:
    0.006310384 = weight(_text_:in in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006310384 = score(doc=664,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    A new challenge, accessing multiple relevant entities, arises from the availability of linked heterogeneous data. In this article, we address more specifically the problem of accessing relevant entities, such as publications and authors within a bibliographic network, given an information need. We propose a novel algorithm, called BibRank, that estimates a joint relevance of documents and authors within a bibliographic network. This model ranks each type of entity using a score propagation algorithm with respect to the query topic and the structure of the underlying bi-type information entity network. Evidence sources, namely content-based and network-based scores, are both used to estimate the topical similarity between connected entities. For this purpose, authorship relationships are analyzed through a language model-based score on the one hand and on the other hand, non topically related entities of the same type are detected through marginal citations. The article reports the results of experiments using the Bibrank algorithm for an information retrieval task. The CiteSeerX bibliographic data set forms the basis for the topical query automatic generation and evaluation. We show that a statistically significant improvement over closely related ranking models is achieved.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:34:49
  15. Dang, E.K.F.; Luk, R.W.P.; Allan, J.: Beyond bag-of-words : bigram-enhanced context-dependent term weights (2014) 0.00 
    0.0022310577 = product of:
  0.0133863455 = sum of:
    0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 1283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0133863455 = score(doc=1283,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 1283, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1283)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    While term independence is a widely held assumption in most of the established information retrieval approaches, it is clearly not true and various works in the past have investigated a relaxation of the assumption. One approach is to use n-grams in document representation instead of unigrams. However, the majority of early works on n-grams obtained only modest performance improvement. On the other hand, the use of information based on supporting terms or "contexts" of queries has been found to be promising. In particular, recent studies showed that using new context-dependent term weights improved the performance of relevance feedback (RF) retrieval compared with using traditional bag-of-words BM25 term weights. Calculation of the new term weights requires an estimation of the local probability of relevance of each query term occurrence. In previous studies, the estimation of this probability was based on unigrams that occur in the neighborhood of a query term. We explore an integration of the n-gram and context approaches by computing context-dependent term weights based on a mixture of unigrams and bigrams. Extensive experiments are performed using the title queries of the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC)-6, TREC-7, TREC-8, and TREC-2005 collections, for RF with relevance judgment of either the top 10 or top 20 documents of an initial retrieval. We identify some crucial elements needed in the use of bigrams in our methods, such as proper inverse document frequency (IDF) weighting of the bigrams and noise reduction by pruning bigrams with large document frequency values. We show that enhancing context-dependent term weights with bigrams is effective in further improving retrieval performance.
  16. Zhang, W.; Yoshida, T.; Tang, X.: ¬A comparative study of TF*IDF, LSI and multi-words for text classification (2011) 0.00 
    0.0021859813 = product of:
  0.013115887 = sum of:
    0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013115887 = score(doc=1165,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    One of the main themes in text mining is text representation, which is fundamental and indispensable for text-based intellegent information processing. Generally, text representation inludes two tasks: indexing and weighting. This paper has comparatively studied TF*IDF, LSI and multi-word for text representation. We used a Chinese and an English document collection to respectively evaluate the three methods in information retreival and text categorization. Experimental results have demonstrated that in text categorization, LSI has better performance than other methods in both document collections. Also, LSI has produced the best performance in retrieving English documents. This outcome has shown that LSI has both favorable semantic and statistical quality and is different with the claim that LSI can not produce discriminative power for indexing.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  17. Bauckhage, C.: Marginalizing over the PageRank damping factor (2014) 0.00 
    0.0021034614 = product of:
  0.012620768 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=928,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    In this note, we show how to marginalize over the damping parameter of the PageRank equation so as to obtain a parameter-free version known as TotalRank. Our discussion is meant as a reference and intended to provide a guided tour towards an interesting result that has applications in information retrieval and classification.
  18. Karlsson, A.; Hammarfelt, B.; Steinhauer, H.J.; Falkman, G.; Olson, N.; Nelhans, G.; Nolin, J.: Modeling uncertainty in bibliometrics and information retrieval : an information fusion approach (2015) 0.00 
    0.0021034614 = product of:
  0.012620768 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  19. Efron, M.: Linear time series models for term weighting in information retrieval (2010) 0.00 
    0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=3688,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Common measures of term importance in information retrieval (IR) rely on counts of term frequency; rare terms receive higher weight in document ranking than common terms receive. However, realistic scenarios yield additional information about terms in a collection. Of interest in this article is the temporal behavior of terms as a collection changes over time. We propose capturing each term's collection frequency at discrete time intervals over the lifespan of a corpus and analyzing the resulting time series. We hypothesize the collection frequency of a weakly discriminative term x at time t is predictable by a linear model of the term's prior observations. On the other hand, a linear time series model for a strong discriminators' collection frequency will yield a poor fit to the data. Operationalizing this hypothesis, we induce three time-based measures of term importance and test these against state-of-the-art term weighting models.
  20. Li, H.; Wu, H.; Li, D.; Lin, S.; Su, Z.; Luo, X.: PSI: A probabilistic semantic interpretable framework for fine-grained image ranking (2018) 0.00 
    0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 4577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=4577,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 4577, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4577)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Image Ranking is one of the key problems in information science research area. However, most current methods focus on increasing the performance, leaving the semantic gap problem, which refers to the learned ranking models are hard to be understood, remaining intact. Therefore, in this article, we aim at learning an interpretable ranking model to tackle the semantic gap in fine-grained image ranking. We propose to combine attribute-based representation and online passive-aggressive (PA) learning based ranking models to achieve this goal. Besides, considering the highly localized instances in fine-grained image ranking, we introduce a supervised constrained clustering method to gather class-balanced training instances for local PA-based models, and incorporate the learned local models into a unified probabilistic framework. Extensive experiments on the benchmark demonstrate that the proposed framework outperforms state-of-the-art methods in terms of accuracy and speed.

Authors

Languages

  • e 49
  • d 11

Types

  • a 57
  • el 2
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes