-
Smithson, S.: Information retrieval evaluation in practice : a case study approach (1994)
0.08
0.07748537 = product of:
0.15497074 = sum of:
0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051210128 = score(doc=7302,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
0.1037606 = sum of:
0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05934933 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 7302, 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=7302)
0.044411276 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044411276 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = 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(2/4)
- 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
-
Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000)
0.05
0.0518803 = product of:
0.2075212 = sum of:
0.2075212 = sum of:
0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11869866 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
0.08882255 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08882255 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 11. 8.2001 16:22:19
- Source
- Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.3-36
-
Belkin, N.J.: ¬An overview of results from Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval (1998)
0.05
0.049989868 = product of:
0.099979736 = sum of:
0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02586502 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
0.07411472 = sum of:
0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042392377 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03172234 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, 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=2339)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
- Source
- Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al
-
Chu, H.: Factors affecting relevance judgment : a report from TREC Legal track (2011)
0.05
0.049989868 = product of:
0.099979736 = sum of:
0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02586502 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
0.07411472 = sum of:
0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042392377 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 4540, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4540)
0.03172234 = weight(_text_:22 in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03172234 = score(doc=4540,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = 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(2/4)
- 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
-
Salton, G.: Thoughts about modern retrieval technologies (1988)
0.05
0.04658822 = product of:
0.09317644 = sum of:
0.051210128 = weight(_text_:data in 1522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051210128 = score(doc=1522,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 1522, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1522)
0.041966315 = product of:
0.08393263 = sum of:
0.08393263 = weight(_text_:processing in 1522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08393263 = score(doc=1522,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.4427661 = fieldWeight in 1522, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1522)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the National Federation of Astracting and Information Services, Philadelphia, 28 Feb-2 Mar 88. In recent years, the amount and the variety of available machine-readable data, new technologies have been introduced, such as high density storage devices, and fancy graphic displays useful for information transformation and access. New approaches have also been considered for processing the stored data based on the construction of knowledge bases representing the contents and structure of the information, and the use of expert system techniques to control the user-system interactions. Provides a brief evaluation of the new information processing technologies, and of the software methods proposed for information manipulation.
-
Kelledy, F.; Smeaton, A.F.: Thresholding the postings lists in information retrieval : experiments on TREC data (1995)
0.05
0.046197 = product of:
0.092394 = sum of:
0.06271934 = weight(_text_:data in 5804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06271934 = score(doc=5804,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 5804, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5804)
0.029674664 = product of:
0.05934933 = sum of:
0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 5804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05934933 = score(doc=5804,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 5804, 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=5804)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- A variety of methods for speeding up the response time of information retrieval processes have been put forward, one of which is the idea of thresholding. Thresholding relies on the data in information retrieval storage structures being organised to allow cut-off points to be used during processing. These cut-off points or thresholds are designed and ised to reduce the amount of information processed and to maintain the quality or minimise the degradation of response to a user's query. TREC is an annual series of benchmarking exercises to compare indexing and retrieval techniques. Reports experiments with a portion of the TREC data where features are introduced into the retrieval process to improve response time. These features improve response time while maintaining the same level of retrieval effectiveness
-
Ahlgren, P.; Grönqvist, L.: Evaluation of retrieval effectiveness with incomplete relevance data : theoretical and experimental comparison of three measures (2008)
0.05
0.046197 = product of:
0.092394 = sum of:
0.06271934 = weight(_text_:data in 2032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06271934 = score(doc=2032,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 2032, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2032)
0.029674664 = product of:
0.05934933 = sum of:
0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 2032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05934933 = score(doc=2032,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 2032, 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=2032)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper investigates two relatively new measures of retrieval effectiveness in relation to the problem of incomplete relevance data. The measures, Bpref and RankEff, which do not take into account documents that have not been relevance judged, are compared theoretically and experimentally. The experimental comparisons involve a third measure, the well-known mean uninterpolated average precision. The results indicate that RankEff is the most stable of the three measures when the amount of relevance data is reduced, with respect to system ranking and absolute values. In addition, RankEff has the lowest error-rate.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.212-225
-
MacCain, K.W.; White, H.D.; Griffith, B.C.: Comparing retrieval performance in online data bases (1987)
0.04
0.04227614 = product of:
0.08455228 = sum of:
0.063356094 = weight(_text_:data in 1167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.063356094 = score(doc=1167,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.4278775 = fieldWeight in 1167, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1167)
0.021196188 = product of:
0.042392377 = sum of:
0.042392377 = weight(_text_:processing in 1167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042392377 = score(doc=1167,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 1167, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1167)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study systematically compares retrievals on 11 topics across five well-known data bases, with MEDLINE's subject indexing as a focus. Each topic was posed by a researcher in the medical behavioral sciences. Each was searches in MEDLINE, EXCERPTA MEDICA, and PSYCHINFO, which permit descriptor searches, and in SCISEARCH and SOCIAL SCISEARCH, which express topics through cited references. Searches on each topic were made with (1) descriptors, (2) cited references, and (3) natural language (a capabiblity common to all five data bases). The researchers who posed the topics judged the results. In every case, the set of records judged relevant was used to to calculate recall, precision, and novelty ratios. Overall, MEDLINE had the highest recall percentage (37%), followed by SSCI (31%). All searches resulted in high precision ratios; novelty ratios of data bases and searches varied widely. Differences in record format among data bases affected the success of the natural language retrievals. Some 445 documents judged relevant were not retrieved from MEDLINE using its descriptors; they were found in MEDLINE through natural language or in an alternative data base. An analysis was performed to examine possible faults in MEDLINE subject indexing as the reason for their nonretrieval. However, no patterns of indexing failure could be seen in those documents subsequently found in MEDLINE through known-item searches. Documents not found in MEDLINE primarily represent failures of coverage - articles were from nonindexed or selectively indexed journals
- Source
- Information processing and management. 23(1987), S.539-553
-
Ng, K.B.; Loewenstern, D.; Basu, C.; Hirsh, H.; Kantor, P.B.: Data fusion of machine-learning methods for the TREC5 routing tak (and other work) (1997)
0.04
0.04172619 = product of:
0.08345238 = sum of:
0.05173004 = weight(_text_:data in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05173004 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 3107, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3107)
0.03172234 = product of:
0.06344468 = sum of:
0.06344468 = weight(_text_:22 in 3107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06344468 = score(doc=3107,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3107, 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=3107)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 27. 2.1999 20:59:22
-
Sievert, M.E.; McKinin, E.J.: Why full-text misses some relevant documents : an analysis of documents not retrieved by CCML or MEDIS (1989)
0.04
0.040554725 = product of:
0.08110945 = sum of:
0.062076043 = weight(_text_:data in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062076043 = score(doc=3564,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 3564, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3564)
0.019033402 = product of:
0.038066804 = sum of:
0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 3564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038066804 = score(doc=3564,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Sparck Jones, K.: Reflections on TREC : TREC-2 (1995)
0.04
0.03764897 = product of:
0.07529794 = sum of:
0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 1916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04138403 = score(doc=1916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 1916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1916)
0.033913903 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 1916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067827806 = score(doc=1916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 1916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1916)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Discusses the TREC programme as a major enterprise in information retrieval research. It reviews its structure as an evaluation exercise, characterises the methods of indexing and retrieval being tested within it in terms of the approaches to system performance factors these represent; analyses the test results for solid, overall conclusions that can be drawn from them; and, in the light of the particular features of the test data, assesses TREC both for generally applicable findings that emerge from it and for directions it offers for future research
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.3, S.291-314
-
Wilbur, W.J.: Human subjectivity and performance limits in document retrieval (1996)
0.04
0.03764897 = product of:
0.07529794 = sum of:
0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04138403 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 6607, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6607)
0.033913903 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067827806 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 6607, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6607)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Test sets for the document retrieval task composed of human relevance judgments have been constructed that allow one to compare human performance directly with that of automatic methods and that place absolute limits on performance by any method. Current retrieval systems are found to generate only about half of the information allowed by these absolute limits. The data suggests that most of the improvement that could be achieved consistent with these limits can only be achieved by incorporating specific subject information into retrieval systems
- Source
- Information processing and management. 32(1996) no.5, S.515-527
-
Harman, D.K.: ¬The first text retrieval conference : TREC-1, 1992 (1993)
0.04
0.03764897 = product of:
0.07529794 = sum of:
0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04138403 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
0.033913903 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 1317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067827806 = score(doc=1317,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 1317, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1317)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Leiva-Mederos, A.; Senso, J.A.; Hidalgo-Delgado, Y.; Hipola, P.: Working framework of semantic interoperability for CRIS with heterogeneous data sources (2017)
0.04
0.03585144 = product of:
0.07170288 = sum of:
0.05474593 = weight(_text_:data in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05474593 = score(doc=3706,freq=14.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.36972845 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
0.016956951 = product of:
0.033913903 = sum of:
0.033913903 = weight(_text_:processing in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033913903 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.17890452 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose Information from Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) is stored in different formats, in platforms that are not compatible, or even in independent networks. It would be helpful to have a well-defined methodology to allow for management data processing from a single site, so as to take advantage of the capacity to link disperse data found in different systems, platforms, sources and/or formats. Based on functionalities and materials of the VLIR project, the purpose of this paper is to present a model that provides for interoperability by means of semantic alignment techniques and metadata crosswalks, and facilitates the fusion of information stored in diverse sources. Design/methodology/approach After reviewing the state of the art regarding the diverse mechanisms for achieving semantic interoperability, the paper analyzes the following: the specific coverage of the data sets (type of data, thematic coverage and geographic coverage); the technical specifications needed to retrieve and analyze a distribution of the data set (format, protocol, etc.); the conditions of re-utilization (copyright and licenses); and the "dimensions" included in the data set as well as the semantics of these dimensions (the syntax and the taxonomies of reference). The semantic interoperability framework here presented implements semantic alignment and metadata crosswalk to convert information from three different systems (ABCD, Moodle and DSpace) to integrate all the databases in a single RDF file. Findings The paper also includes an evaluation based on the comparison - by means of calculations of recall and precision - of the proposed model and identical consultations made on Open Archives Initiative and SQL, in order to estimate its efficiency. The results have been satisfactory enough, due to the fact that the semantic interoperability facilitates the exact retrieval of information. Originality/value The proposed model enhances management of the syntactic and semantic interoperability of the CRIS system designed. In a real setting of use it achieves very positive results.
-
Guglielmo, E.J.; Rowe, N.C.: Natural-language retrieval of images based on descriptive captions (1996)
0.03
0.03466491 = product of:
0.06932982 = sum of:
0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 6624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043894395 = score(doc=6624,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 6624, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6624)
0.025435425 = product of:
0.05087085 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 6624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=6624,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 6624, 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=6624)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Describes a prototype intelligent information retrieval system that uses natural-language understanding to efficiently locate captioned data. Multimedia data generally requires captions to explain its features and significance. Such descriptive captions often rely on long nominal compunds (strings of consecutive nouns) which create problems of ambiguous word sense. Presents a system in which captions and user queries are parsed and interpreted to produce a logical form, using a detailed theory of the meaning of nominal compounds. A fine-grain match can then compare the logical form of the query to the logical forms for each caption. To improve system efficiency, the system performs a coarse-grain match with index files, using nouns and verbs extracted from the query. Experiments with randomly selected queries and captions from an existing image library show an increase of 30% in precision and 50% in recall over the keyphrase approach currently used. Processing times have a median of 7 seconds as compared to 8 minutes for the existing system
-
Robertson, S.E.; Walker, S.; Hancock-Beaulieu, M.M.: Large test collection experiments of an operational, interactive system : OKAPI at TREC (1995)
0.03
0.032942846 = product of:
0.06588569 = sum of:
0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 6964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036211025 = score(doc=6964,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 6964, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6964)
0.029674664 = product of:
0.05934933 = sum of:
0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 6964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05934933 = score(doc=6964,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 6964, 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=6964)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The Okapi system has been used in a series of experiments on the TREC collections, investiganting probabilistic methods, relevance feedback, and query expansion, and interaction issues. Some new probabilistic models have been developed, resulting in simple weigthing functions that take account of document length and within document and within query term frequency. All have been shown to be beneficial when based on large quantities of relevance data as in the routing task. Interaction issues are much more difficult to evaluate in the TREC framework, and no benefits have yet been demonstrated from feedback based on small numbers of 'relevant' items identified by intermediary searchers
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.3, S.345-360
-
Larsen, B.; Ingwersen, P.; Lund, B.: Data fusion according to the principle of polyrepresentation (2009)
0.03
0.031686906 = product of:
0.06337381 = sum of:
0.050684877 = weight(_text_:data in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050684877 = score(doc=2752,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.342302 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
0.012688936 = product of:
0.025377871 = sum of:
0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025377871 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Drabenstott, K.M.; Vizine-Goetz, D.: Using subject headings for online retrieval : theory, practice and potential (1994)
0.03
0.028236724 = product of:
0.05647345 = sum of:
0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031038022 = score(doc=386,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 386, 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=386)
0.025435425 = product of:
0.05087085 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=386,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 386, 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=386)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Using subject headings for Online Retrieval is an indispensable tool for online system desingners who are developing new systems or refining exicting ones. The book describes subject analysis and subject searching in online catalogs, including the limitations of retrieval, and demonstrates how such limitations can be overcome through system design and programming. The book describes the Library of Congress Subject headings system and system characteristics, shows how information is stored in machine readable files, and offers examples of and recommendations for successful methods. Tables are included to support these recommendations, and diagrams, graphs, and bar charts are used to provide results of data analyses.
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Information processing and management 31(1995) no.3, S.450-451 (R.R. Larson); Library resources and technical services 41(1997) no.1, S.60-67 (B.H. Weinberg)
-
Sparck Jones, K.: Reflections on TREC (1997)
0.03
0.028236724 = product of:
0.05647345 = sum of:
0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031038022 = score(doc=580,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 580, 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=580)
0.025435425 = product of:
0.05087085 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=580,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 580, 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=580)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper discusses the Text REtrieval Conferences (TREC) programme as a major enterprise in information retrieval research. It reviews its structure as an evaluation exercise, characterises the methods of indexing and retrieval being tested within its terms of the approaches to system performance factors these represent; analyses the test results for solid, overall conclusions that can be drawn from them; and, in the light of the particular features of the test data, assesses TREC both for generally applicable findings that emerge from it and for directions it offers for future research
- Footnote
- Wiederabdruck aus: Information processing and management 31(1995) no.3, S.192-314
-
¬The Second Text Retrieval Conference : TREC-2 (1995)
0.03
0.028236724 = product of:
0.05647345 = sum of:
0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031038022 = score(doc=1320,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1320, 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=1320)
0.025435425 = product of:
0.05087085 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 1320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=1320,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 1320, 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=1320)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: HARMAN, D.: Overview of the Second Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-2); SPRACK JONES, K.: Reflections on TREC; BUCKLEY, C., J. ALLAN u. G. SALTON: Automatic routing and retrieval using SMART: TREC-2; CALLAN, J.P., W.B. CROFT u. J. BROGLIO: TREC and TIPSTER experiments with INQUERY; ROBERTSON, S.R., S. WALKER u. M.M. HANCOCK-BEAULIEU: Large test collection experiments on an operational, interactive system: OKAPI at TREC; ZOBEL, J., A. MOFFAT, R. WILKINSON u. R. SACKS-DAVIS: Efficient retrieval of partial documents; METTLER, M. u. F. NORDBY: TREC routing experiments with the TRW/Paracel Fast Data Finder; EVANS, D.A. u. R.G. LEFFERTS: CLARIT-TREC experiments; STRZALKOWSKI, T.: Natural language information retrieval; CAID, W.R., S.T. DUMAIS u. S.I. GALLANT: Learned vector-space models for document retrieval; BELKIN, N.J. P. KANTOR, E.A. FOX u. J.A. SHAW: Combining the evidence of multiple query representations for information retrieval
- Source
- Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.3, S.269-448
