-
Lespinasse, K.: TREC: une conference pour l'evaluation des systemes de recherche d'information (1997)
0.06
0.05908383 = product of:
0.11816766 = sum of:
0.11816766 = sum of:
0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061605897 = score(doc=744,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056561764 = score(doc=744,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 744, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=744)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- TREC ia an annual conference held in the USA devoted to electronic systems for large full text information searching. The conference deals with evaluation and comparison techniques developed since 1992 by participants from the research and industrial fields. The work of the conference is destined for designers (rather than users) of systems which access full text information. Describes the context, objectives, organization, evaluation methods and limits of TREC
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Ellis, D.: Progress and problems in information retrieval (1996)
0.06
0.05908383 = product of:
0.11816766 = sum of:
0.11816766 = sum of:
0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061605897 = score(doc=789,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056561764 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- An introduction to the principal generic approaches to information retrieval research with their associated concepts, models and systems, this text is designed to keep the information professional up to date with the major themes and developments that have preoccupied researchers in recent month in relation to textual and documentary retrieval systems.
- Date
- 26. 7.2002 20:22:46
-
Ravana, S.D.; Taheri, M.S.; Rajagopal, P.: Document-based approach to improve the accuracy of pairwise comparison in evaluating information retrieval systems (2015)
0.05
0.053692453 = product of:
0.107384905 = sum of:
0.107384905 = sum of:
0.0720338 = weight(_text_:systems in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0720338 = score(doc=2587,freq=14.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4491705 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0353511 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a method to have more accurate results in comparing performance of the paired information retrieval (IR) systems with reference to the current method, which is based on the mean effectiveness scores of the systems across a set of identified topics/queries. Design/methodology/approach Based on the proposed approach, instead of the classic method of using a set of topic scores, the documents level scores are considered as the evaluation unit. These document scores are the defined document's weight, which play the role of the mean average precision (MAP) score of the systems as a significance test's statics. The experiments were conducted using the TREC 9 Web track collection. Findings The p-values generated through the two types of significance tests, namely the Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney show that by using the document level scores as an evaluation unit, the difference between IR systems is more significant compared with utilizing topic scores. Originality/value Utilizing a suitable test collection is a primary prerequisite for IR systems comparative evaluation. However, in addition to reusable test collections, having an accurate statistical testing is a necessity for these evaluations. The findings of this study will assist IR researchers to evaluate their retrieval systems and algorithms more accurately.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Sanderson, M.: ¬The Reuters test collection (1996)
0.05
0.050061855 = product of:
0.10012371 = sum of:
0.10012371 = sum of:
0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043561947 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 6971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056561764 = score(doc=6971,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6971, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6971)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
-
Pal, S.; Mitra, M.; Kamps, J.: Evaluation effort, reliability and reusability in XML retrieval (2011)
0.04
0.044901766 = product of:
0.08980353 = sum of:
0.08980353 = sum of:
0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054452434 = score(doc=4197,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 4197, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4197)
0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 4197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0353511 = score(doc=4197,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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
-
Rajagopal, P.; Ravana, S.D.; Koh, Y.S.; Balakrishnan, V.: Evaluating the effectiveness of information retrieval systems using effort-based relevance judgment (2019)
0.04
0.044901766 = product of:
0.08980353 = sum of:
0.08980353 = sum of:
0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054452434 = score(doc=5287,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 5287, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5287)
0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 5287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0353511 = score(doc=5287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
- Abstract
- Purpose The effort in addition to relevance is a major factor for satisfaction and utility of the document to the actual user. The purpose of this paper is to propose a method in generating relevance judgments that incorporate effort without human judges' involvement. Then the study determines the variation in system rankings due to low effort relevance judgment in evaluating retrieval systems at different depth of evaluation. Design/methodology/approach Effort-based relevance judgments are generated using a proposed boxplot approach for simple document features, HTML features and readability features. The boxplot approach is a simple yet repeatable approach in classifying documents' effort while ensuring outlier scores do not skew the grading of the entire set of documents. Findings The retrieval systems evaluation using low effort relevance judgments has a stronger influence on shallow depth of evaluation compared to deeper depth. It is proved that difference in the system rankings is due to low effort documents and not the number of relevant documents. Originality/value Hence, it is crucial to evaluate retrieval systems at shallow depth using low effort relevance judgments.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Smithson, S.: Information retrieval evaluation in practice : a case study approach (1994)
0.04
0.043804124 = product of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038116705 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 7302, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7302)
0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 7302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049491543 = score(doc=7302,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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(1/2)
- 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
-
Blair, D.C.: STAIRS Redux : thoughts on the STAIRS evaluation, ten years after (1996)
0.04
0.043804124 = product of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038116705 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049491543 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3002, 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=3002)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The test of retrieval effectiveness performed on IBM's STAIRS and reported in 'Communications of the ACM' 10 years ago, continues to be cited frequently in the information retrieval literature. The reasons for the study's continuing pertinence to today's research are discussed, and the political, legal, and commercial aspects of the study are presented. In addition, the method of calculating recall that was used in the STAIRS study is discussed in some detail, especially how it reduces the 5 major types of uncertainty in recall estimations. It is also suggested that this method of recall estimation may serve as the basis for recall estimations that might be truly comparable between systems
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.1, S.4-22
-
Losee, R.M.: Determining information retrieval and filtering performance without experimentation (1995)
0.04
0.043804124 = product of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038116705 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3368, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3368)
0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049491543 = score(doc=3368,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3368, 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=3368)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The performance of an information retrieval or text and media filtering system may be determined through analytic methods as well as by traditional simulation or experimental methods. These analytic methods can provide precise statements about expected performance. They can thus determine which of 2 similarly performing systems is superior. For both a single query terms and for a multiple query term retrieval model, a model for comparing the performance of different probabilistic retrieval methods is developed. This method may be used in computing the average search length for a query, given only knowledge of database parameter values. Describes predictive models for inverse document frequency, binary independence, and relevance feedback based retrieval and filtering. Simulation illustrate how the single term model performs and sample performance predictions are given for single term and multiple term problems
- Date
- 22. 2.1996 13:14:10
-
Crestani, F.; Rijsbergen, C.J. van: Information retrieval by imaging (1996)
0.04
0.03754639 = product of:
0.07509278 = sum of:
0.07509278 = sum of:
0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03267146 = score(doc=6967,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 6967, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6967)
0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 6967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042421322 = score(doc=6967,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6967, 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=6967)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
-
Belkin, N.J.: ¬An overview of results from Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval (1998)
0.04
0.036927395 = product of:
0.07385479 = sum of:
0.07385479 = sum of:
0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038503684 = score(doc=2339,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0353511 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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(1/2)
- Abstract
- Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
-
King, D.W.: Blazing new trails : in celebration of an audacious career (2000)
0.04
0.036927395 = product of:
0.07385479 = sum of:
0.07385479 = sum of:
0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038503684 = score(doc=1184,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0353511 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- I had the distinct pleasure of working with Pauline Atherton (Cochrane) during the 1960s, a period that can be considered the heyday of automated information system design and evaluation in the United States. I first met Pauline at the 1962 American Documentation Institute annual meeting in North Hollywood, Florida. My company, Westat Research Analysts, had recently been awarded a contract by the U.S. Patent Office to provide statistical support for the design of experiments with automated information retrieval systems. I was asked to attend the meeting to learn more about information retrieval systems and to begin informing others of U.S. Patent Office activities in this area. At one session, Pauline and I questioned a speaker about the research that he presented. Pauline's questions concerned the logic of their approach and mine, the statistical aspects. After the session, she came over to talk to me and we began a professional and personal friendship that continues to this day. During the 1960s, Pauline was involved in several important information-retrieval projects including a series of studies for the American Institute of Physics, a dissertation examining the relevance of retrieved documents, and development and evaluation of an online information-retrieval system. I had the opportunity to work with Pauline and her colleagues an four of those projects and will briefly describe her work in the 1960s.
- Date
- 22. 9.1997 19:16:05
-
Petrelli, D.: On the role of user-centred evaluation in the advancement of interactive information retrieval (2008)
0.04
0.036927395 = product of:
0.07385479 = sum of:
0.07385479 = sum of:
0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038503684 = score(doc=2026,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0353511 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper discusses the role of user-centred evaluations as an essential method for researching interactive information retrieval. It draws mainly on the work carried out during the Clarity Project where different user-centred evaluations were run during the lifecycle of a cross-language information retrieval system. The iterative testing was not only instrumental to the development of a usable system, but it enhanced our knowledge of the potential, impact, and actual use of cross-language information retrieval technology. Indeed the role of the user evaluation was dual: by testing a specific prototype it was possible to gain a micro-view and assess the effectiveness of each component of the complex system; by cumulating the result of all the evaluations (in total 43 people were involved) it was possible to build a macro-view of how cross-language retrieval would impact on users and their tasks. By showing the richness of results that can be acquired, this paper aims at stimulating researchers into considering user-centred evaluations as a flexible, adaptable and comprehensive technique for investigating non-traditional information access systems.
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
- Source
- Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38
-
Fuhr, N.; Niewelt, B.: ¬Ein Retrievaltest mit automatisch indexierten Dokumenten (1984)
0.02
0.024745772 = product of:
0.049491543 = sum of:
0.049491543 = product of:
0.09898309 = sum of:
0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09898309 = score(doc=262,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 262, 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=262)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20.10.2000 12:22:23
-
Tomaiuolo, N.G.; Parker, J.: Maximizing relevant retrieval : keyword and natural language searching (1998)
0.02
0.024745772 = product of:
0.049491543 = sum of:
0.049491543 = product of:
0.09898309 = sum of:
0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09898309 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6418, 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=6418)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Online. 22(1998) no.6, S.57-58
-
Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000)
0.02
0.024745772 = product of:
0.049491543 = sum of:
0.049491543 = product of:
0.09898309 = sum of:
0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09898309 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 11. 8.2001 16:22:19
-
Dalrymple, P.W.: Retrieval by reformulation in two library catalogs : toward a cognitive model of searching behavior (1990)
0.02
0.024745772 = product of:
0.049491543 = sum of:
0.049491543 = product of:
0.09898309 = sum of:
0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 5089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09898309 = score(doc=5089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5089, 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=5089)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:43:54
-
Borlund, P.: Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems (2000)
0.02
0.024351869 = product of:
0.048703738 = sum of:
0.048703738 = product of:
0.097407475 = sum of:
0.097407475 = weight(_text_:systems in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.097407475 = score(doc=2556,freq=10.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.6073894 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- LCSH
- Information storage and retrieval systems / Evaluation
Interactive computer systems / Evaluation
- Subject
- Information storage and retrieval systems / Evaluation
Interactive computer systems / Evaluation
-
Harter, S.P.; Hert, C.A.: Evaluation of information retrieval systems : approaches, issues, and methods (1997)
0.02
0.023341617 = product of:
0.046683233 = sum of:
0.046683233 = product of:
0.09336647 = sum of:
0.09336647 = weight(_text_:systems in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09336647 = score(doc=2264,freq=12.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.58219147 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- State of the art review of information retrieval systems, defined as systems retrieving documents a sopposed to numerical data. Explains the classic Cranfield studies that have served as a standard for retrieval testing since the 1960s and discusses the Cranfield model and its relevance based measures of retrieval effectiveness. Details sosme of the problems with the Cranfield instruments and issues of validity and reliability, generalizability, usefulness and basic concepts. Discusses the evaluation of the Internet search engines in light of the Cranfield model, noting the very real differences between batch systems (Cranfield) and interactive systems (Internet). Because the Internet collection is not fixed, it is impossible to determine recall as a measure of retrieval effectiveness. considers future directions in evaluating information retrieval systems
-
Evaluation of information retrieval systems : special topic issue (1996)
0.02
0.02310221 = product of:
0.04620442 = sum of:
0.04620442 = product of:
0.09240884 = sum of:
0.09240884 = weight(_text_:systems in 6812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09240884 = score(doc=6812,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.57622015 = fieldWeight in 6812, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6812)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A special issue devoted to the topic of evaluation of information retrieval systems
