Search (444 results, page 1 of 23)

0.10258579 = product of:
  0.12823224 = sum of:
    0.075912006 = weight(_text_:section in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075912006 = score(doc=5082,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.28858003 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=5082,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.014551422 = weight(_text_:information in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014551422 = score(doc=5082,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16628155 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.019118613 = product of:
      0.038237225 = sum of:
        0.038237225 = weight(_text_:technology in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038237225 = score(doc=5082,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.25753677 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

Text retrieval technology targets a problem that is all too familiar: finding relevant information in large stores of electronic documents. The problem is an old one, with the first research conference devoted to the subject held in 1958 [11]. Since then the problem has continued to grow as more information is created in electronic form and more people gain electronic access. The advent of the World Wide Web, where anyone can publish so everyone must search, is a graphic illustration of the need for effective retrieval technology. The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a workshop series designed to build the infrastructure necessary for the large-scale evaluation of text retrieval technology, thereby accelerating its transfer into the commercial sector. The series is sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Defense. At the time of this writing, there have been twelve TREC workshops and preparations for the thirteenth workshop are under way. Participants in the workshops have been drawn from the academic, commercial, and government sectors, and have included representatives from more than twenty different countries. These collective efforts have accomplished a great deal: a variety of large test collections have been built for both traditional ad hoc retrieval and related tasks such as cross-language retrieval, speech retrieval, and question answering; retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled; and many commercial retrieval systems now contain technology first developed in TREC.
This book chronicles the evolution of retrieval systems over the course of TREC. To be sure, there has already been a wealth of information written about TREC. Each conference has produced a proceedings containing general overviews of the various tasks, papers written by the individual participants, and evaluation results.1 Reports on expanded versions of TREC experiments frequently appear in the wider information retrieval literature. There also have been special issues of journals devoted to particular TRECs [3; 13] and particular TREC tasks [6; 4]. No single volume could hope to be a comprehensive record of all TREC-related research. Instead, this book looks to distill the overabundance of detail into a manageable whole that summarizes the main lessons learned from TREC. The book consists of three main parts. The first part contains introductory and descriptive chapters on TREC's history, the major products of TREC (the test collections), and the retrieval evaluation methodology. Part II includes chapters describing the major TREC ''tracks,'' evaluations of special subtopics such as cross-language retrieval and question answering. Part III contains contributions from research groups that have participated in TREC. The epilogue to the book is written by Karen Sparck Jones, who reflects on the impact TREC has had on the information retrieval field. The structure of this introductory chapter is similar to that of the book as a whole. The chapter begins with a short history of TREC; expanded descriptions of specific aspects of the history are included in subsequent chapters to make those chapters self-contained. Section 1.2 describes TREC's track structure, which has been responsible for the growth of TREC and allows TREC to adapt to changing needs. The final section lists both the major accomplishments of TREC and some remaining challenges.

Source

TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman

0.091543876 = product of:
  0.15257312 = sum of:
    0.10735579 = weight(_text_:section in 3762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10735579 = score(doc=3762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.40811378 = fieldWeight in 3762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3762)
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 3762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=3762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 3762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3762)
    0.02656714 = weight(_text_:information in 3762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02656714 = score(doc=3762,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 3762, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3762)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Presents current work on modelling interactive information retrieval systems and users' interactions with them. Analyzes the papers in this special issue in the context of evaluation in information retrieval (IR) by examining the different layers at which IR use could be evaluated. IR poses the double evaluation problem of evaluating both the underlying system effectiveness and the overall ability of the system to aid users. The papers look at different issues in combining human-computer interaction (HCI) research with IR research and provide insights into the problem of evaluating the information seeking process

Footnote

Contribution to a special section of articles related to human-computer interaction and information retrieval

0.082439125 = product of:
  0.13739854 = sum of:
    0.092019245 = weight(_text_:section in 6640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092019245 = score(doc=6640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34981182 = fieldWeight in 6640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6640)
    0.022607451 = weight(_text_:on in 6640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022607451 = score(doc=6640,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 6640, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6640)
    0.022771835 = weight(_text_:information in 6640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022771835 = score(doc=6640,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 6640, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6640)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to compare the efficiency of the computerized searching of LISA Plus and Currents Research in Library and Information Science (CRLIS) with manual searching of the printed version of LISA. The study focused on articles covering the library and information science profession (LIS), published in Asian library and information science periodicals. The first stage was to identify Asian LIS periodicals using the Ulrich's Plus CD-ROM database. Computerized searching involved 2 methods; straightforward creation of sets for every periodical title; and browsing of brief citations of abstracts of all articles identified as being on the library profession published in the 1993 LISA. The manual searching involved browsing section 2.0 profession for all 11 issues of the printed LISA. Examines the reasons why computeroized searches took more time and retrieved less number of items. Suggests measures whereby the efficiency of computerized searches can be increased and concludes that to ensure comprehensive recall of relevant items, a combination of manual and computerized search is indispensible

Source

Malaysian journal of libarry and information science. 1(1996) no.1, S.67-84

0.08240796 = product of:
  0.1373466 = sum of:
    0.092019245 = weight(_text_:section in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092019245 = score(doc=3760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34981182 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
    0.027688364 = weight(_text_:on in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027688364 = score(doc=3760,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
    0.017638987 = weight(_text_:information in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017638987 = score(doc=3760,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Examines the effectiveness of a map and a textual contents list on the navigation performance of subjects with and without prior knowledge of the text topic in hypertext. Subjects used the document to answer 10 questions. the results showed that performance in the map condition was superior to that of the contents list condition, which in turn was superior to that of the hypertext only condition. Knowledgeable subjects performed better than non-knowledgeable subjects, except in the map condition where their performance was equivalent. the results show that non-knowledgeable users tend to rely more heavily on navigational aids than knowledgeable users, and that aids were used primarily during browsing and information retrieval in hypertext

Footnote

Contribution to a special section devoted to human-computer interaction and information retrieval

0.08018135 = product of:
  0.13363558 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
    0.019202897 = weight(_text_:information in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019202897 = score(doc=3087,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
    0.093118176 = sum of:
      0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03908618 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 3087, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3087)
      0.054031998 = weight(_text_:22 in 3087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054031998 = score(doc=3087,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3087, 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=3087)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Proceedings of the 5th TREC-confrerence held in Gaithersburgh, Maryland, Nov 20-22, 1996. Aim of the conference was discussion on retrieval techniques for large test collections. Different research groups used different techniques, such as automated thesauri, term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The proceedings include papers, tables of the system results, and brief system descriptions including timing and storage information

Imprint

Gaithersburgh, MD : National Institute of Standards and Technology

0.07278934 = product of:
  0.12131557 = sum of:
    0.07668271 = weight(_text_:section in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07668271 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29150987 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.032631043 = weight(_text_:on in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032631043 = score(doc=2094,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29761705 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.012001811 = weight(_text_:information in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012001811 = score(doc=2094,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Some of the most popular measures to evaluate information filtering systems are usually independent of the users because they are based in relevance judgments obtained from experts. On the other hand, the user-centred evaluation allows showing the different impressions that the users have perceived about the system running. This work is focused on discussing the problem of user-centred versus system-centred evaluation of a Web content personalization system where the personalization is based on a user model that stores long term (section, categories and keywords) and short term interests (adapted from user provided feedback). The user-centred evaluation is based on questionnaires filled in by the users before and after using the system and the system-centred evaluation is based on the comparison between ranking of documents, obtained from the application of a multi-tier selection process, and binary relevance judgments collected previously from real users. The user-centred and system-centred evaluations performed with 106 users during 14 working days have provided valuable data concerning the behaviour of the users with respect to issues such as document relevance or the relative importance attributed to different ways of personalization. The results obtained shows general satisfaction on both the personalization processes (selection, adaptation and presentation) and the system as a whole.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.3, S.1293-1307

0.06371536 = product of:
  0.10619226 = sum of:
    0.015985882 = weight(_text_:on in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015985882 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
    0.020367749 = weight(_text_:information in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020367749 = score(doc=3564,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3564, 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=3564)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Searches conducted as part of the MEDLINE/Full-Text Research Project revealed that the full-text data bases of clinical medical journal articles (CCML (Comprehensive Core Medical Library) from BRS Information Technologies, and MEDIS from Mead Data Central) did not retrieve all the relevant citations. An analysis of the data indicated that 204 relevant citations were retrieved only by MEDLINE. A comparison of the strategies used on the full-text data bases with the text of the articles of these 204 citations revealed that 2 reasons contributed to these failure. The searcher often constructed a restrictive strategy which resulted in the loss of relevant documents; and as in other kinds of retrieval, the problems of natural language caused the loss of relevant documents.

Date

9. 1.1996 10:22:31

Imprint

Medford, New Jersey : Learned Information

Source

ASIS'89. Managing information and technology. Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Washington D.C., 30.10.-2.11.1989. Vol.26. Ed.by J. Katzer and G.B. Newby

0.0622355 = product of:
  0.10372583 = sum of:
    0.023073634 = weight(_text_:on in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023073634 = score(doc=2026,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.02245333 = weight(_text_:information in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02245333 = score(doc=2026,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38

0.053886868 = product of:
  0.089811444 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.029398315 = weight(_text_:information in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029398315 = score(doc=2417,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
    0.03377 = product of:
      0.06754 = sum of:
        0.06754 = weight(_text_:22 in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06754 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Pages

S.22-25

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol. 20

Source

Productivity in the information age : proceedings of the 46th ASIS annual meeting, 1983. Ed.: Raymond F Vondra

0.04665473 = product of:
  0.11663683 = sum of:
    0.023518652 = weight(_text_:information in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023518652 = score(doc=4049,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
    0.093118176 = sum of:
      0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03908618 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
      0.054031998 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054031998 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

Imprint

Gaithersburg, MD : National Institute of Standards / Information Technology Laboratory

0.046485025 = product of:
  0.07747504 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=2752,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
    0.009601449 = weight(_text_:information in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009601449 = score(doc=2752,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
    0.046559088 = sum of:
      0.01954309 = weight(_text_:technology in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01954309 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.027015999 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027015999 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.646-654

0.041333556 = product of:
  0.06888926 = sum of:
    0.03014327 = weight(_text_:on in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03014327 = score(doc=1317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
    0.019202897 = weight(_text_:information in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019202897 = score(doc=1317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Reports on the 1st Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-1) held in Rockville, MD, 4-6 Nov. 1992. The TREC experiment is being run by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to allow information retrieval researchers to scale up from small collection of data to larger sized experiments. Gropus of researchers have been provided with text documents compressed on CD-ROM. They used experimental retrieval system to search the text and evaluate the results

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.4, S.411-414

0.04069397 = product of:
  0.067823276 = sum of:
    0.03230309 = weight(_text_:on in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230309 = score(doc=2718,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
    0.023639 = product of:
      0.047278 = sum of:
        0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 2718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047278 = score(doc=2718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

A study of the number of irrelevant documents retrieved in a co-ordinate indexing system that does not employ eitherr roles or links. These tests were based on one hundred actual inquiries received in the library and therefore an evaluation of recall efficiency is not included. Over half the enquiries produced no noise, but the mean average percentage niose figure was approximately 33 per cent based on a total average retireval figure of eighteen documents per search. Details of the size of the indexed collection, methods of indexing, and an analysis of the reasons for the retrieval of irrelevant documents are discussed, thereby providing information officers who are thinking of installing such a system with some evidence on which to base a decision as to whether or not to utilize these devices

Source

Journal of documentation. 22(1966), S.203-209

0.040520042 = product of:
  0.0675334 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
    0.019202897 = weight(_text_:information in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019202897 = score(doc=6971,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
    0.027015999 = product of:
      0.054031998 = sum of:
        0.054031998 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054031998 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, 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=6971)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Describes the Reuters test collection, which at 22.173 references is significantly larger than most traditional test collections. In addition, Reuters has none of the recall calculation problems normally associated with some of the larger test collections available. Explains the method derived by D.D. Lewis to perform retrieval experiments on the Reuters collection and illustrates the use of the Reuters collection using some simple retrieval experiments that compare the performance of stemming algorithms

Source

Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon

0.04009014 = product of:
  0.066816896 = sum of:
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=3002,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=3002,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
    0.023639 = product of:
      0.047278 = sum of:
        0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047278 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The test of retrieval effectiveness performed on IBM's STAIRS and reported in 'Communications of the ACM' 10 years ago, continues to be cited frequently in the information retrieval literature. The reasons for the study's continuing pertinence to today's research are discussed, and the political, legal, and commercial aspects of the study are presented. In addition, the method of calculating recall that was used in the STAIRS study is discussed in some detail, especially how it reduces the 5 major types of uncertainty in recall estimations. It is also suggested that this method of recall estimation may serve as the basis for recall estimations that might be truly comparable between systems

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.4-22

0.04009014 = product of:
  0.066816896 = sum of:
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=5001,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
    0.023639 = product of:
      0.047278 = sum of:
        0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 5001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047278 = score(doc=5001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

A study was done to test the effectiveness of retrieval using title word searching. It was based on actual search profiles used in the Mechanized Information Center at Ohio State University, in order ro replicate as closely as possible actual searching conditions. Fewer than 50% of the relevant titles were retrieved by keywords in titles. The low rate of retrieval can be attributes to three sources: titles themselves, user and information specialist ignorance of the subject vocabulary in use, and to general language problems. Across fields it was found that the social sciences had the best retrieval rate, with science having the next best, and arts and humanities the lowest. Ways to enhance and supplement keyword in title searching on the computer and in printed indexes are discussed.

Date

14. 3.1996 13:22:21

0.039630942 = product of:
  0.066051565 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
    0.023762373 = weight(_text_:information in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023762373 = score(doc=7302,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
    0.023639 = product of:
      0.047278 = sum of:
        0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047278 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The evaluation of information retrieval systems is an important yet difficult operation. This paper describes an exploratory evaluation study that takes an interpretive approach to evaluation. The longitudinal study examines evaluation through the information-seeking behaviour of 22 case studies of 'real' users. The eclectic approach to data collection produced behavioral data that is compared with relevance judgements and satisfaction ratings. The study demonstrates considerable variations among the cases, among different evaluation measures within the same case, and among the same measures at different stages within a single case. It is argued that those involved in evaluation should be aware of the difficulties, and base any evaluation on a good understanding of the cases in question

Source

Information processing and management. 30(1994) no.2, S.205-221

0.03862575 = product of:
  0.06437625 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
    0.023518652 = weight(_text_:information in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023518652 = score(doc=4476,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Proceedings of the 6th TREC-confrerence held in Gaithersburgh, Maryland, Nov 19-21, 1997. Aim of the conference was discussion on retrieval techniques for large test collections. 51 research groups used different techniques, such as automated thesauri, term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The proceedings include papers, tables of the system results, and brief system descriptions including timing and storage information

Imprint

Gaithersburgh, MD : National Institute of Standards, Information Technology Laboratory

0.036618754 = product of:
  0.061031256 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=3961,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
    0.0144021725 = weight(_text_:information in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144021725 = score(doc=3961,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
    0.014657319 = product of:
      0.029314637 = sum of:
        0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029314637 = score(doc=3961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Modeling multidimensional relevance in information retrieval (IR) has attracted much attention in recent years. However, most existing studies are conducted through relatively small-scale user studies, which may not reflect a real-world and natural search scenario. In this article, we propose to study the multidimensional user relevance model (MURM) on large scale query logs, which record users' various search behaviors (e.g., query reformulations, clicks and dwelling time, etc.) in natural search settings. We advance an existing MURM model (including five dimensions: topicality, novelty, reliability, understandability, and scope) by providing two additional dimensions, that is, interest and habit. The two new dimensions represent personalized relevance judgment on retrieved documents. Further, for each dimension in the enriched MURM model, a set of computable features are formulated. By conducting extensive document ranking experiments on Bing's query logs and TREC session Track data, we systematically investigated the impact of each dimension on retrieval performance and gained a series of insightful findings which may bring benefits for the design of future IR systems.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.12, S.2743-2754

0.036036298 = product of:
  0.060060494 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 7521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=7521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 7521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7521)
    0.019202897 = weight(_text_:information in 7521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019202897 = score(doc=7521,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 7521, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7521)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 7521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=7521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 7521, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Proceedings of the 4th TREC-Conference held in Gaithersburg, MD, Nov 1-3, 1995. Aim of the conference was discussion on retrieval techniques for large trest collections. different research groups used different techniques, such as automatic thesauri, term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The proceedings include papers, tables of the system results, and brief descriptions including timing and storage information

Imprint

Gaithersburgh, MD : National Institute of Standards and Technology