-
Ruthven, I.; Lalmas, M.: Selective relevance feedback using term characteristics (1999)
0.08
0.07839601 = product of:
0.15679201 = sum of:
0.106154054 = weight(_text_:et in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.106154054 = score(doc=3824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.5183982 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
0.050637968 = product of:
0.101275936 = sum of:
0.101275936 = weight(_text_:al in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.101275936 = score(doc=3824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.5063471 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Borlund, P.; Ruthven, I.: Introduction to the special issue on evaluating interactive information retrieval systems (2008)
0.06
0.06271681 = product of:
0.12543362 = sum of:
0.084923245 = weight(_text_:et in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084923245 = score(doc=2019,freq=8.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.41471857 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
0.040510375 = product of:
0.08102075 = sum of:
0.08102075 = weight(_text_:al in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08102075 = score(doc=2019,freq=8.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.4050777 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Evaluation has always been a strong element of Information Retrieval (IR) research, much of our focus being on how we evaluate IR algorithms. As a research field we have benefited greatly from initiatives such as Cranfield, TREC, CLEF and INEX that have added to our knowledge of how to create test collections, the reliability of system-based evaluation criteria and our understanding of how to interpret the results of an algorithmic evaluation. In contrast, evaluations whose main focus is the user experience of searching have not yet reached the same level of maturity. Such evaluations are complex to create and assess due to the increased number of variables to incorporate within the study, the lack of standard tools available (for example, test collections) and the difficulty of selecting appropriate evaluation criteria for study. In spite of the complicated nature of user-centred evaluations, this form of evaluation is necessary to understand the effectiveness of individual IR systems and user search interactions. The growing incorporation of users into the evaluation process reflects the changing nature of IR within society; for example, more and more people have access to IR systems through Internet search engines but have little training or guidance in how to use these systems effectively. Similarly, new types of search system and new interactive IR facilities are becoming available to wide groups of end-users. In this special topic issue we present papers that tackle the methodological issues of evaluating interactive search systems. Methodologies can be presented at different levels; the papers by Blandford et al. and Petrelli present whole methodological approaches for evaluating interactive systems whereas those by Göker and Myrhaug and López Ostenero et al., consider what makes an appropriate evaluation methodological approach for specific retrieval situations. Any methodology must consider the nature of the methodological components, the instruments and processes by which we evaluate our systems. A number of papers have examined these issues in detail: Käki and Aula focus on specific methodological issues for the evaluation of Web search interfaces, Lopatovska and Mokros present alternate measures of retrieval success, Tenopir et al. examine the affective and cognitive verbalisations that occur within user studies and Kelly et al. analyse questionnaires, one of the basic tools for evaluations. The range of topics in this special issue as a whole nicely illustrates the variety and complexity by which user-centred evaluation of IR systems is undertaken.
-
Elsweiler, D.; Ruthven, I.; Jones, C.: Towards memory supporting personal information management tools (2007)
0.01
0.00860596 = product of:
0.03442384 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 5057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=5057,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 5057, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5057)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Ruthven, I.; Buchanan, S.; Jardine, C.: Relationships, environment, health and development : the information needs expressed online by young first-time mothers (2018)
0.01
0.00860596 = product of:
0.03442384 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 4369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=4369,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4369, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4369)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Ruthven, I.; Buchanan, S.; Jardine, C.: Isolated, overwhelmed, and worried : young first-time mothers asking for information and support online (2018)
0.01
0.00860596 = product of:
0.03442384 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 4455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=4455,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4455, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4455)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Buchanan, S.; Jardine, C.; Ruthven, I.: Information behaviors in disadvantaged and dependent circumstances and the role of information intermediaries (2019)
0.01
0.0071716327 = product of:
0.02868653 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 4682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=4682,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4682, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4682)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Ruthven, I.: Integrating approaches to relevance (2005)
0.01
0.005737306 = product of:
0.022949224 = sum of:
0.022949224 = weight(_text_:c in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022949224 = score(doc=638,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- New directions in cognitive information retrieval. Eds.: A. Spink, C. Cole
-
Belabbes, M.A.; Ruthven, I.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Rasmussen Pennington, D.: Information overload : a concept analysis (2023)
0.00
0.0036956405 = product of:
0.014782562 = sum of:
0.014782562 = product of:
0.029565124 = sum of:
0.029565124 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029565124 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 4.2023 19:27:56
