Search (31 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5023, 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=5023)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.14-23

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1491, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1491)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 65(2014) H.4/5, S.231-238

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1763-1775

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 5022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=5022,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5022, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5022)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.3-14

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 5026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=5026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5026)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.46-56

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=3752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the Deep Web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the Academic Invisible Web (AIW). We define the Academic Invisible Web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the Invisible Web is central to scien-tific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estima-tion based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the Invisible Web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the Invisible Web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the Academic Invisible Web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the Academic In-visible Web.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=2580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the deep web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the academic invisible web (AIW). We define the academic invisible web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the invisible web is central to scientific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estimation based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the invisible web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the invisible web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the academic invisible web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the academic invisible web.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1773-1788

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=3144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.

0.0011898145 = product of:
  0.004759258 = sum of:
    0.004759258 = weight(_text_:information in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004759258 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl. auch die Stellungnahme von W. Bredemeier in: Open Password. Nr.676 vom 10.12.2019 u.d.T.: Fehlende Theorie und fehlender Bezugsrahmen auch bei "Human Recorded Information": Fahrlässige Aufgabe des einzigen Alleinstellungsmerkmals, den die Disziplin von vornherein hatte, Die Informationswissenschaft als Hügellandschaft mit "Stand-alone-USPs" [https://www.password-online.de/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=833&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=1045]. Vgl. auch den Bericht über die Berliner Tagung von Stefan Hauff-Hartwig in: Bibliotheksdienst 54(2020) H.1, S.27- . Vgl. auch die Erwiderung: Jörs, B.: Wider eine Überschätzung der gegenwärtigen Leistungen der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft: Keine fehlende Fundierung? Doch mit gesellschaftlicher Relevanz ausgestattet?. Bernd Jörs antwortet Dirk Lewandowski. In: Open Password. Nr. 691 vom 21.01.2020, [https://www.password- online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzksMCw2MjY0LCIxMjF0dWVibnVuczBra2dnY2d3d2c0ODB3ODgwazRzYyIsOCwwXQ].

7.4363407E-4 = product of:
  0.0029745363 = sum of:
    0.0029745363 = weight(_text_:information in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029745363 = score(doc=3576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.048488684 = fieldWeight in 3576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3576)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Mit der sehr umfangreichen Wikipedia bietet sich für die Suchmaschinenbetreiber eine Möglichkeit, durch die manuelle Einbindung einer einzigen Quelle vermeintlich alle Fragen kompetent abzudecken. Der bisher zumindest bei Yahoo betriebene technische Aufwand, verschiedene Quellen (für die man als Suchmaschinenbetreiber vielleicht sogar bezahlen muss!) einzubinden und trotzdem nicht auf jede Frage eine schnelle Antwort liefern zu können, kann gespart werden. Letztlich stellt sich allerdings die Frage nach der Qualität der Treffer aus Wikipedia. Die Wikipedia wird von Freiwilligen erstellt, wobei es sich nicht um eine geschlossene Gruppe handelt. Vielmehr wird jeder Internet-Nutzer dazu eingeladen, sich an der Erstellung der Enzyklopädie zu beteiligen. Artikel werden gemeinschaftlich erarbeitet und sollen so dem Ideal nach mit der Zeit immer besser werden. Gibt es aktuelle Entwicklungen, so können diese direkt in die Artikel eingebunden werden. Es ist aber zu fragen, ob die Artikel durchweg die von einem Nachschlagewerk zu erwartende Qualität liefern können. Sicherlich gibt es in der Wikipedia sehr gute Artikel. Allerdings gibt es auch einen großen Anteil von schlechten, unsystematischen und fragwürdigen Eintragungen. Ein Blick auf das "Portal Bibliothek, Information, Dokumentation" zeigt exemplarisch einige Schwachstellen: Zunächst ist das Portal unvollständig. Das ist verständlich und wäre nicht besonders schlimm, wenn dies für den Nutzer immer ersichtlich wäre. Zwar ist dies klar, wenn zu einem Begriff kein Artikel angezeigt wird. Artikel, die sich noch in einem "frühen Stadium" befinden (und deshalb noch nicht oder nur marginal überarbeitet wurden), sind jedoch nicht als solche gekennzeichnet. Sie können deshalb, insbesondere wenn Suchmaschinen an prominenter Stelle auf sie verweisen, in ihrer Qualität leicht mit Einträgen aus echten Enzyklopädien verwechselt werden. Viele Nutzer werden ihnen damit eine vergleichbare Autorität zumessen. Ein weiterer Kritikpunkt betrifft den unsystematische Aufbau der Wikipedia. Wieder ein Beispiel aus dem Portal BID: Ein Artikel zum Booleschen Retrieval ist nicht vorhanden, wohl aber zum Erweiterten Booleschen Retrieval. Dieser besteht hauptsächlich aus einer Ansammlung von Formeln und hat damit wenig mit einem enzyklopädischen Artikel zu tun.