Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × author_ss:"Vakkari, P."
  1. Vakkari, P.; Sormunen, E.: ¬The influence of relevance levels an the effectiveness of interactive information retrieval (2004) 0.00
    0.003091229 = product of:
      0.012364916 = sum of:
        0.012364916 = weight(_text_:information in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012364916 = score(doc=2884,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2884, 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=2884)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper, we focus an the effect of graded relevance an the results of interactive information retrieval (IR) experiments based an assigned search tasks in a test collection. A group of 26 subjects searched for four Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) topics using automatic and interactive query expansion based an relevance feedback. The TREC- and user-suggested pools of relevant documents were reassessed an a four-level relevance scale. The results show that the users could identify nearly all highly relevant documents and about half of the marginal ones. Users also selected a fair number of irrelevant documents for query expansion. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of query expansion is closely related to the searchers' success in retrieving and identifying highly relevant documents for feedback. The implications of the results an interpreting the findings of past experiments with liberal relevance thresholds are also discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.11, S.963-969
  2. Vakkari, P.; Huuskonen, S.: Search effort degrades search output but improves task outcome (2012) 0.00
    0.0021033147 = product of:
      0.008413259 = sum of:
        0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008413259 = score(doc=46,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 46, 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=46)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    We analyzed how effort in searching is associated with search output and task outcome. In a field study, we examined how students' search effort for an assigned learning task was associated with precision and relative recall, and how this was associated to the quality of learning outcome. The study subjects were 41 medical students writing essays for a class in medicine. Searching in Medline was part of their assignment. The data comprised students' search logs in Medline, their assessment of the usefulness of references retrieved, a questionnaire concerning the search process, and evaluation scores of the essays given by the teachers. Pearson correlation was calculated for answering the research questions. Finally, a path model for predicting task outcome was built. We found that effort in the search process degraded precision but improved task outcome. There were two major mechanisms reducing precision while enhancing task outcome. Effort in expanding Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms within search sessions and effort in assessing and exploring documents in the result list between the sessions degraded precision, but led to better task outcome. Thus, human effort compensated bad retrieval results on the way to good task outcome. Findings suggest that traditional effectiveness measures in information retrieval should be complemented with evaluation measures for search process and outcome.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.657-670