Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011) 0.06 
    0.058798738 = product of:
  0.117597476 = sum of:
    0.117597476 = sum of:
      0.0872787 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0872787 = score(doc=4540,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.43196514 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study intends to identify factors that affect relevance judgment of retrieved information as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered and analyzed from the participants of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task using a questionnaire which includes not only a list of 80 relevance factors identified in prior research, but also a space for expressing their thoughts on relevance judgment in the process. Findings - This study finds that topicality remains a primary criterion, out of various options, for determining relevance, while specificity of the search request, task, or retrieved results also helps greatly in relevance judgment. Research limitations/implications - Relevance research should focus on the topicality and specificity of what is being evaluated as well as conducted in real environments. Practical implications - If multiple relevance factors are presented to assessors, the total number in a list should be below ten to take account of the limited processing capacity of human beings' short-term memory. Otherwise, the assessors might either completely ignore or inadequately consider some of the relevance factors when making judgment decisions. Originality/value - This study presents a method for reducing the artificiality of relevance research design, an apparent limitation in many related studies. Specifically, relevance judgment was made in this research as part of the 2007 TREC Legal track interactive task rather than a study devised for the sake of it. The assessors also served as searchers so that their searching experience would facilitate their subsequent relevance judgments.
    Date
    12. 7.2011 18:29:22
  2. Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011) 0.04 
    0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4197, 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=4197)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Initiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) provides a TREC-like platform for evaluating content-oriented XML retrieval systems. Since 2007, INEX has been using a set of precision-recall based metrics for its ad hoc tasks. The authors investigate the reliability and robustness of these focused retrieval measures, and of the INEX pooling method. They explore four specific questions: How reliable are the metrics when assessments are incomplete, or when query sets are small? What is the minimum pool/query-set size that can be used to reliably evaluate systems? Can the INEX collections be used to fairly evaluate "new" systems that did not participate in the pooling process? And, for a fixed amount of assessment effort, would this effort be better spent in thoroughly judging a few queries, or in judging many queries relatively superficially? The authors' findings validate properties of precision-recall-based metrics observed in document retrieval settings. Early precision measures are found to be more error-prone and less stable under incomplete judgments and small topic-set sizes. They also find that system rankings remain largely unaffected even when assessment effort is substantially (but systematically) reduced, and confirm that the INEX collections remain usable when evaluating nonparticipating systems. Finally, they observe that for a fixed amount of effort, judging shallow pools for many queries is better than judging deep pools for a smaller set of queries. However, when judging only a random sample of a pool, it is better to completely judge fewer topics than to partially judge many topics. This result confirms the effectiveness of pooling methods.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:20:56
  3. Vechtomova, O.: Facet-based opinion retrieval from blogs (2010) 0.02 
    0.01763663 = product of:
  0.03527326 = sum of:
    0.03527326 = product of:
      0.07054652 = sum of:
        0.07054652 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07054652 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.34915322 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper presents methods of retrieving blog posts containing opinions about an entity expressed in the query. The methods use a lexicon of subjective words and phrases compiled from manually and automatically developed resources. One of the methods uses the Kullback-Leibler divergence to weight subjective words occurring near query terms in documents, another uses proximity between the occurrences of query terms and subjective words in documents, and the third combines both factors. Methods of structuring queries into facets, facet expansion using Wikipedia, and a facet-based retrieval are also investigated in this work. The methods were evaluated using the TREC 2007 and 2008 Blog track topics, and proved to be highly effective.
  4. Reichert, S.; Mayr, P.: Untersuchung von Relevanzeigenschaften in einem kontrollierten Eyetracking-Experiment (2012) 0.01 
    0.009095631 = product of:
  0.018191261 = sum of:
    0.018191261 = product of:
      0.036382522 = sum of:
        0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036382522 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 328, 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=328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:25:54
  5. Dzeyk, W.: Effektiv und nutzerfreundlich : Einsatz von semantischen Technologien und Usability-Methoden zur Verbesserung der medizinischen Literatursuche (2010) 0.01 
    0.008818315 = product of:
  0.01763663 = sum of:
    0.01763663 = product of:
      0.03527326 = sum of:
        0.03527326 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03527326 = score(doc=4416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.17457661 = fieldWeight in 4416, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden die Ergebnisse des MorphoSaurus-Projekts der Deutschen Zentralbibliothek für Medizin (ZB MED) vorgestellt. Ziel des Forschungsprojekts war die substanzielle Verbesserung des Information-Retrievals der medizinischen Suchmaschine MEDPILOT mithilfe computerlinguistischer Ansätze sowie die Optimierung der Gebrauchstauglichkeit (Usability) der Suchmaschinenoberfläche. Das Projekt wurde in Kooperation mit der Averbis GmbH aus Freiburg im Zeitraum von Juni 2007 bis Dezember 2008 an der ZB MED in Köln durchgeführt. Ermöglicht wurde die Realisierung des Projekts durch eine Förderung des Paktes für Forschung und Innovation. Während Averbis die MorphoSaurus-Technologie zur Verarbeitung problematischer Sprachaspekte von Suchanfragen einbrachte und wesentliche Datenbanken der ZB MED in ein Testsystem mit moderner Suchmaschinentechnologie implementierte, evaluierte ein Team der ZB MED das Potenzial dieser Technologie. Neben einem Vergleich der Leistungsfähigkeit zwischen der bisherigen MEDPILOT-Suche und der neuen Sucharchitektur wurde ein Benchmarking mit konkurrierenden Suchmaschinen wie PubMed, Scirus, Google und Google Scholar sowie GoPubMed durchgeführt. Für die Evaluation wurden verschiedene Testkollektionen erstellt, deren Items bzw. Suchphrasen aus einer Inhaltsanalyse realer Suchanfragen des MEDPILOT-Systems gewonnen wurden. Eine Überprüfung der Relevanz der Treffer der Testsuchmaschine als wesentliches Kriterium für die Qualität der Suche zeigte folgendes Ergebnis: Durch die Anwendung der MorphoSaurus-Technologie ist eine im hohen Maße unabhängige Verarbeitung fremdsprachlicher medizinischer Inhalte möglich geworden. Darüber hinaus zeigt die neue Technik insbesondere dort ihre Stärken, wo es um die gleichwertige Verarbeitung von Laien- und Expertensprache, die Analyse von Komposita, Synonymen und grammatikalischen Varianten geht. Zudem sind Module zur Erkennung von Rechtschreibfehlern und zur Auflösung von Akronymen und medizinischen Abkürzungen implementiert worden, die eine weitere Leistungssteigerung des Systems versprechen. Ein Vergleich auf der Basis von MEDLINE-Daten zeigte: Den Suchmaschinen MED-PILOT, PubMed, GoPubMed und Scirus war die Averbis-Testsuchumgebung klar überlegen. Die Trefferrelevanz war größer, es wurden insgesamt mehr Treffer gefunden und die Anzahl der Null-Treffer-Meldungen war im Vergleich zu den anderen Suchmaschinen am geringsten.
  6. Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014) 0.01 
    0.007579693 = product of:
  0.015159386 = sum of:
    0.015159386 = product of:
      0.030318772 = sum of:
        0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030318772 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 4.2015 19:31:22
  7. Ravana, S.D.; Taheri, M.S.; Rajagopal, P.: Document-based approach to improve the accuracy of pairwise comparison in evaluating information retrieval systems (2015) 0.01 
    0.007579693 = product of:
  0.015159386 = sum of:
    0.015159386 = product of:
      0.030318772 = sum of:
        0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030318772 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2587, 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=2587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  8. Rajagopal, P.; Ravana, S.D.; Koh, Y.S.; Balakrishnan, V.: Evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems using effort-based relevance judgment (2019) 0.01 
    0.007579693 = product of:
  0.015159386 = sum of:
    0.015159386 = product of:
      0.030318772 = sum of:
        0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030318772 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5287, 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=5287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

Types