Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028236724 = product of:
  0.05647345 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 2731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=2731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2731)
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 2731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=2731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Summarisation is traditionally used to produce summaries of the textual contents of documents. In this paper, it is argued that summarisation methods can also be applied to the logical structure of XML documents. Structure summarisation selects the most important elements of the logical structure and ensures that the user's attention is focused towards sections, subsections, etc. that are believed to be of particular interest. Structure summaries are shown to users as hierarchical tables of contents. This paper discusses methods for structure summarisation that use various features of XML elements in order to select document portions that a user's attention should be focused to. An evaluation methodology for structure summarisation is also introduced and summarisation results using various summariser versions are presented and compared to one another. We show that data sets used in information retrieval evaluation can be used effectively in order to produce high quality (query independent) structure summaries. We also discuss the choice and effectiveness of particular summariser features with respect to several evaluation measures.

Source

Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.5, S.956-968

0.012717713 = product of:
  0.05087085 = sum of:
    0.05087085 = product of:
      0.1017417 = sum of:
        0.1017417 = weight(_text_:processing in 110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1017417 = score(doc=110,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.53671354 = fieldWeight in 110, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.1-3

0.010598094 = product of:
  0.042392377 = sum of:
    0.042392377 = product of:
      0.08478475 = sum of:
        0.08478475 = weight(_text_:processing in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08478475 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.4472613 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 34(1998) no.1, S.19-33

0.009144665 = product of:
  0.03657866 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 5169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=5169,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 5169, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5169)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ruthven, Mounia, and van Rijsbergen rank and select terms for query expansion using information gathered on searcher evaluation behavior. Using the TREC Financial Times and Los Angeles Times collections and search topics from TREC-6 placed in simulated work situations, six student subjects each preformed three searches on an experimental system and three on a control system with instructions to search by natural language expression in any way they found comfortable. Searching was analyzed for behavior differences between experimental and control situations, and for effectiveness and perceptions. In three experiments paired t-tests were the analysis tool with controls being a no relevance feedback system, a standard ranking for automatic expansion system, and a standard ranking for interactive expansion while the experimental systems based ranking upon user information on temporal relevance and partial relevance. Two further experiments compare using user behavior (number assessed relevant and similarity of relevant documents) to choose a query expansion technique against a non-selective technique and finally the effect of providing the user with knowledge of the process. When partial relevance data and time of assessment data are incorporated in term ranking more relevant documents were recovered in fewer iterations, however retrieval effectiveness overall was not improved. The subjects, none-the-less, rated the suggested terms as more useful and used them more heavily. Explanations of what the feedback techniques were doing led to higher use of the techniques.

0.007418666 = product of:
  0.029674664 = sum of:
    0.029674664 = product of:
      0.05934933 = sum of:
        0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05934933 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.74-88

0.007418666 = product of:
  0.029674664 = sum of:
    0.029674664 = product of:
      0.05934933 = sum of:
        0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05934933 = score(doc=961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.1, S.89-105

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 4986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=4986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 4986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4986)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Our consumption of online information is mediated by filtering, ranking, and recommendation algorithms that introduce unintentional biases as they attempt to deliver relevant and engaging content. It has been suggested that our reliance on online technologies such as search engines and social media may limit exposure to diverse points of view and make us vulnerable to manipulation by disinformation. In this article, we mine a massive data set of web traffic to quantify two kinds of bias: (i) homogeneity bias, which is the tendency to consume content from a narrow set of information sources, and (ii) popularity bias, which is the selective exposure to content from top sites. Our analysis reveals different bias levels across several widely used web platforms. Search exposes users to a diverse set of sources, while social media traffic tends to exhibit high popularity and homogeneity bias. When we focus our analysis on traffic to news sites, we find higher levels of popularity bias, with smaller differences across applications. Overall, our results quantify the extent to which our choices of online systems confine us inside "social bubbles."

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2003 19:27:36