Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03314337 = product of:
  0.13257349 = sum of:
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=1180,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 1180, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1180)
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 1180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1180)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Discusses the results of a case study in which 20 random queries were presented for ten consecutive days to Hotbot and Snap, two search tools that draw their results from the database of Inktomi. The results show huge daily fluctuations in the number of hits retrieved by Hotbot, and high stability in the hits displayed by Snap. These findings are to alert users of Hotbot of its instability as of October 1999, and they raise questions about the reliability of previous studies estimating the size of Hotbot based on its overlap with other search engines.

0.020665925 = product of:
  0.0826637 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 1058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=1058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1058)
    0.031888437 = product of:
      0.06377687 = sum of:
        0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 1058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06377687 = score(doc=1058,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 1058, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Web is an enormous set of documents connected through hypertext links created by authors of Web pages. These links have been studied quantitatively, but little has been done so far in order to understand why these links are created. As a first step towards a better understanding, we propose a classification of link types in academic environments on the Web. The classification is multi-faceted and involves different aspects of the source and the target page, the link area and the relationship between the source and the target. Such classification provides an insight into the diverse uses of hypertext links on the Web, and has implications for browsing and ranking in IR systems by differentiating between different types of links. As a case study we classified a sample of links between sites of Israeli academic institutions.

0.011274266 = product of:
  0.09019413 = sum of:
    0.09019413 = product of:
      0.18038826 = sum of:
        0.18038826 = weight(_text_:area in 7125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18038826 = score(doc=7125,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.92385846 = fieldWeight in 7125, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.009655728 = product of:
  0.038622912 = sum of:
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3071, 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=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose - One of the under-explored aspects in the process of user information seeking behaviour is influence of time on relevance evaluation. It has been shown in previous studies that individual users might change their assessment of search results over time. It is also known that aggregated judgements of multiple individual users can lead to correct and reliable decisions; this phenomenon is known as the "wisdom of crowds". The purpose of this paper is to examine whether aggregated judgements will be more stable and thus more reliable over time than individual user judgements. Design/methodology/approach - In this study two simple measures are proposed to calculate the aggregated judgements of search results and compare their reliability and stability to individual user judgements. In addition, the aggregated "wisdom of crowds" judgements were used as a means to compare the differences between human assessments of search results and search engine's rankings. A large-scale user study was conducted with 87 participants who evaluated two different queries and four diverse result sets twice, with an interval of two months. Two types of judgements were considered in this study: relevance on a four-point scale, and ranking on a ten-point scale without ties. Findings - It was found that aggregated judgements are much more stable than individual user judgements, yet they are quite different from search engine rankings. Practical implications - The proposed "wisdom of crowds"-based approach provides a reliable reference point for the evaluation of search engines. This is also important for exploring the need of personalisation and adapting search engine's ranking over time to changes in users preferences. Originality/value - This is a first study that applies the notion of "wisdom of crowds" to examine an under-explored in the literature phenomenon of "change in time" in user evaluation of relevance.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.007479902 = product of:
  0.059839215 = sum of:
    0.059839215 = weight(_text_:case in 3439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059839215 = score(doc=3439,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 3439, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3439)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Domain experts are skilled in buliding a narrow ontology that reflects their subfield of expertise based on their work experience and personal beliefs. We call this type of ontology a single-viewpoint ontology. There can be a variety of such single viewpoint ontologies that represent a wide spectrum of subfields and expert opinions on the domain. However, to have a complete formal vocabulary for the domain they need to be linked and unified into a multiviewpoint model while having the subjective viewpoint statements marked and distinguished from the objectively true statements. In this study, we propose and implement a two-phase methodology for multiviewpoint ontology construction by nonexpert users. The proposed methodology was implemented for the domain of the effect of diet on health. A large-scale crowdsourcing experiment was conducted with about 750 ontological statements to determine whether each of these statements is objectively true, viewpoint, or erroneous. Typically, in crowdsourcing experiments the workers are asked for their personal opinions on the given subject. However, in our case their ability to objectively assess others' opinions was examined as well. Our results show substantially higher accuracy in classification for the objective assessment approach compared to the results based on personal opinions.

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=390)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=3753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0073941024 = product of:
  0.05915282 = sum of:
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 3822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=3822,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 3822, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3822)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Informetrics is a subfield of information science and it encompasses bibliometrics, scientometrics, cybermetrics, and webometrics. This encyclopedia entry provides an overview of informetrics and its subfields. In general, informetrics deals with quantitative aspects of information: its production, dissemination, evaluation, and use. Bibliometrics and scientometrics study scientific literature: papers, journals, patents, and citations; while in webometric studies the sources studied are Web pages and Web sites, and citations are replaced by hypertext links. The entry introduces major topics in informetrics: citation analysis and citation related studies, the journal impact factor, the recently defined h-index, citation databases, co-citation analysis, open access publications and its implications, informetric laws, techniques for mapping and visualization of informetric phenomena, the emerging subfields of webometrics, cybermetrics and link analysis, and research evaluation.

0.0069712265 = product of:
  0.055769812 = sum of:
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=305)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This study introduces methods for evaluating search engine performance over a time period. Several measures are defined, which as a whole describe search engine functionality over time. The necessary setup for such studies is described, and the use of these measures is illustrated through a specific example. The set of measures introduced here may serve as a guideline for the search engines for testing and improving their functionality. We recommend setting up a standard suite of measures for evaluating search engine performance.

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=253)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In this study, we consider the structure and linking strategy of Hebrew websites of several nonprofit organizations. Because nonprofit organizations differ from commercial, educational, or governmental sectors, it is important to understand the ways they utilize the web. To the best of our knowledge, the linking structure of nonprofit organizations has not been previously studied. We surveyed websites of 54 nonprofit organizations in Israel; most of these sites have at least 100 volunteers. We compared their orientation and contents and we built their linking map. We divided the organizations into four main groups: economic aid and citizen rights organizations, health aid organizations, organizations supporting families and individuals with special needs, and organizations for women and children. We found that the number of links inside the special needs group is much higher than in the other groups. We tried to explain this behavior by considering the data obtained from the site-linking graph. The value of our results is in defining and testing a method to investigate a group of nonprofit organizations, using a case study of Israeli organizations.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 6104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=6104,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 6104, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6104)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

We present the first systematic study of the influence of time on user judgements for rankings and relevance grades of web search engine results. The goal of this study is to evaluate the change in user assessment of search results and explore how users' judgements change. To this end, we conducted a large-scale user study with 86 participants who evaluated 2 different queries and 4 diverse result sets twice with an interval of 2 months. To analyze the results we investigate whether 2 types of patterns of user behavior from the theory of categorical thinking hold for the case of evaluation of search results: (a) coarseness and (b) locality. To quantify these patterns we devised 2 new measures of change in user judgements and distinguish between local (when users swap between close ranks and relevance values) and nonlocal changes. Two types of judgements were considered in this study: (a) relevance on a 4-point scale, and (b) ranking on a 10-point scale without ties. We found that users tend to change their judgements of the results over time in about 50% of cases for relevance and in 85% of cases for ranking. However, the majority of these changes were local.

0.00522842 = product of:
  0.04182736 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=813)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The Internet, and more specifically the World Wide Web, is quickly becoming one of our main information sources. Systematic evaluation and analysis can help us understand how this medium works, grows, and changes, and how it influences our lives and research. New approaches in informetrics can provide an appropriate means towards achieving the above goals, and towards establishing a sound theory. This paper presents a selective review of research based on the Internet, using bibliometric and informetric methods and tools. Some of these studies clearly show the applicability of bibliometric laws to the Internet, while others establish new definitions and methods based on the respective definitions for printed sources. Both informetrics and Internet research can gain from these additional methods.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 1103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=1103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1103)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Users' preferences for folders versus tags was studied in 2 working environments where both options were available to them. In the Gmail study, we informed 75 participants about both folder-labeling and tag-labeling, observed their storage behavior after 1 month, and asked them to estimate the proportions of different retrieval options in their behavior. In the Windows 7 study, we informed 23 participants about tags and asked them to tag all their files for 2 weeks, followed by a period of 5 weeks of free choice between the 2 methods. Their storage and retrieval habits were tested prior to the learning session and, after 7 weeks, using special classification recording software and a retrieval-habits questionnaire. A controlled retrieval task and an in-depth interview were conducted. Results of both studies show a strong preference for folders over tags for both storage and retrieval. In the minority of cases where tags were used for storage, participants typically used a single tag per information item. Moreover, when multiple classification was used for storage, it was only marginally used for retrieval. The controlled retrieval task showed lower success rates and slower retrieval speeds for tag use. Possible reasons for participants' preferences are discussed.

0.004231272 = product of:
  0.033850174 = sum of:
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0016778135 = product of:
  0.013422508 = sum of:
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 3364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=3364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3364, 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=3364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0013422508 = product of:
  0.010738007 = sum of:
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1634, 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=1634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22