Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01414357 = product of:
  0.04243071 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=2912,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2912, 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=2912)
    0.03350648 = weight(_text_:und in 2912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03350648 = score(doc=2912,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 2912, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2912)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Information-Retrieval-(IR-)Modelle spezifizieren, wie zur einer gegebenen Anfrage die Antwortdokumente aus einer Dokumentenkollektion bestimmt werden. Dabei macht jedes Modell bestimmte Annahmen über die Struktur von Dokumenten und Anfragen und definiert dann die so genannte Retrievalfunktion, die das Retrievalgewicht eines Dokumentes bezüglich einer Anfrage bestimmt - im Falle des Booleschen Retrieval etwa eines der Gewichte 0 oder 1. Die Dokumente werden dann nach fallenden Gewichten sortiert und dem Benutzer präsentiert. Zunächst sollen hier einige grundlegende Charakteristika von Retrievalmodellen beschrieben werden, bevor auf die einzelnen Modelle näher eingegangen wird. Wie eingangs erwähnt, macht jedes Modell Annahmen über die Struktur von Dokumenten und Fragen. Ein Dokument kann entweder als Menge oder Multimenge von so genannten Termen aufgefasst werden, wobei im zweiten Fall das Mehrfachvorkommen berücksichtigt wird. Dabei subsummiert 'Term' einen Suchbegriff, der ein einzelnes Wort, ein mehrgliedriger Begriff oder auch ein komplexes Freitextmuster sein kann. Diese Dokumentrepräsentation wird wiederum auf eine so genannte Dokumentbeschreibung abgebildet, in der die einzelnen Terme gewichtet sein können; dies ist Aufgabe der in Kapitel B 5 beschriebenen Indexierungsmodelle. Im Folgenden unterscheiden wir nur zwischen ungewichteter (Gewicht eines Terms ist entweder 0 oderl) und gewichteter Indexierung (das Gewicht ist eine nichtnegative reelle Zahl). Ebenso wie bei Dokumenten können auch die Terme in der Frage entweder ungewichtet oder gewichtet sein. Daneben unterscheidet man zwischen linearen (Frage als Menge von Termen, ungewichtet oder gewichtet) und Booleschen Anfragen.

Source

Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis

0.00990557 = product of:
  0.02971671 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=2419,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.

Date

16.11.2008 16:22:48

Series

Lecture notes in computer science; vol.3232

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 2267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=2267,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 2267, 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=2267)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The INitiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) aims at providing an infrastructure to evaluate the effectiveness of content-oriented XML retrieval systems. To this end, in the first round of INEX in 2002, a test collection of real world XML documents along with a set of topics and respective relevance assessments have been created with the collaboration of 36 participating organizations. In this article, we provide an overview of the first round of the INEX initiative.

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 4296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=4296,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 4296, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4296)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Daffodil is a front-end to federated, heterogeneous digital libraries targeting at strategic support of users during the information seeking process. This is done by offering a variety of functions for searching, exploring and managing digital library objects. However, the distributed search increases response time and the conceptual model of the underlying search processes is inherently weaker. This makes query formulation harder and the resulting waiting times can be frustrating. In this paper, we investigate the concept of proactive support during the user's query formulation. For improving user efficiency and satisfaction, we implemented annotations, proactive support and error markers on the query form itself. These functions decrease the probability for syntactical or semantical errors in queries. Furthermore, the user is able to make better tactical decisions and feels more confident that the system handles the query properly. Evaluations with 30 subjects showed that user satisfaction is improved, whereas no conclusive results were received for efficiency.

Series

Lecture notes in computer science ; 3652

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 4380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=4380,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4380, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4380)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In the logical approach to information retrieval, retrieval is considered as uncertain inference. Whereas classical IR models are based on propositional logic, we combine Datalog (function-free Horn clause predicate logic) with probability theory. Therefore, probabilistic weights may be attached to both facts and rules. The underlying semantics extends the well-founded semantics of modularly stratified Datalog to a possible worlds semantics