Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of search engines (2012) 0.06

0.056258798 = product of:
  0.112517595 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract: This chapter presents a theoretical framework for evaluating next generation search engines. The author focuses on search engines whose results presentation is enriched with additional information and does not merely present the usual list of "10 blue links," that is, of ten links to results, accompanied by a short description. While Web search is used as an example here, the framework can easily be applied to search engines in any other area. The framework not only addresses the results presentation, but also takes into account an extension of the general design of retrieval effectiveness tests. The chapter examines the ways in which this design might influence the results of such studies and how a reliable test is best designed.
Date: 20. 4.2012 13:26:14

Lewandowski, D.: Open-Access-Archiv für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft (2004) 0.03
```
0.028324801 = product of:
  0.056649603 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 2816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=2816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 2816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2816)
    0.02234455 = product of:
      0.0446891 = sum of:
        0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 2816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0446891 = score(doc=2816,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 2816, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
```
Content

"Für die Themenfelder Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft sowie verwandte Anwendungsfelder besteht über das Open-Access-Archiv E-LIS (http://eprints.rclis.org/) die Möglichkeit, Publikationen und Forschungsergebnisse schnell und kostenfrei weltweit verfügbar zu machen. Das Ziel von E-LIS ist es, die Kommunikation innerhalb der Community zu fördern und für eine rasche Verbreitung von Forschungsergebnissen zu sorgen. E-LIS hält sich an die Ziele des Eprint Movement und des Free Scholarship Movement. Das Archiv wird durch "Selbst-Archivierung" aufgebaut, d.h. jede/r Autor/in kann seine Texte selbst ins System einstellen. Bisher sind bereits über 1.000 Publikationen verfügbar, der tägliche Zuwachs kann sich sehen lassen. Allerdings sind bisher so gut wie keine Texte aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum vorhanden. Wir möchten daher alle Autoren wissenschaftlicher Texte aus dem LIS-Bereich aufrufen, ihre E-Prints in E-LIS verfügbar zu machen. Die Vorteile liegen auf der Hand: - Die Texte werden dauerhaft elektronisch verfügbar gemacht. - Es besteht ein einheitlicher und leichter Zugriff auf die Texte. - Die elektronische Verfügbarkeit erhöht die Verbreitung und damit die Wirkung der Forschungsarbeiten. Um einen Text in das System einzustellen, müssen Sie sich einmalig auf der Website anmelden (http://eprints.rclis.org/perl/register) und können dann direkt loslegen. E-LIS basiert allein auf ehrenamtlicher Arbeit und verfolgt keine kommerziellen Ziele. Für Fragen des Copyrights wurde eine eigene Seite eingerichtet (http://eprints.rclis.org/copyright.html), ebenso zur Submission Policy (http://eprints.rclis.org/policy.html)."

Date

26. 9.2004 12:10:46
Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017) 0.03
```
0.025052518 = product of:
  0.050105035 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
```
Abstract

Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.

Date

26. 6.2017 13:21:04

Lewandowski, D.: Informationsarmut : sowohl ein quantitatives als auch ein qualitatives Problem (1999) 0.01

0.01372202 = product of:
  0.05488808 = sum of:
    0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 3646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05488808 = score(doc=3646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 3646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3646)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 23.10.1996 17:26:29

Lewandowski, D.; Drechsler, J.; Mach, S. von: Deriving query intents from web search engine queries (2012) 0.01

0.008576263 = product of:
  0.03430505 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=385)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 26. 8.2012 14:37:19

Lewandowski, D.: Alles nur noch Google? : Entwicklungen im Bereich der WWW-Suchmaschinen (2002) 0.01

0.006746116 = product of:
  0.026984464 = sum of:
    0.026984464 = product of:
      0.05396893 = sum of:
        0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05396893 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 29. 9.2002 18:49:22

Lewandowski, D.: Abfragesprachen und erweiterte Funktionen von WWW-Suchmaschinen (2004) 0.01

0.006746116 = product of:
  0.026984464 = sum of:
    0.026984464 = product of:
      0.05396893 = sum of:
        0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05396893 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2314, 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=2314)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 28.11.2004 13:11:22

Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011) 0.01

0.006746116 = product of:
  0.026984464 = sum of:
    0.026984464 = product of:
      0.05396893 = sum of:
        0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05396893 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 344, 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=344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 18. 9.2018 18:22:18

Lewandowski, D.: Zusammenarbeit von Google, Yahoo und Microsoft (2005) 0.01

0.006003384 = product of:
  0.024013536 = sum of:
    0.024013536 = weight(_text_:26 in 3378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024013536 = score(doc=3378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.13656367 = fieldWeight in 3378, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3378)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source: Password. 2005, H.2, S.26

Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014) 0.01

0.005059587 = product of:
  0.020238347 = sum of:
    0.020238347 = product of:
      0.040476695 = sum of:
        0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040476695 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1491, 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=1491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 22. 9.2014 18:54:11

Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011) 0.00

0.0042163227 = product of:
  0.01686529 = sum of:
    0.01686529 = product of:
      0.03373058 = sum of:
        0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373058 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 30. 9.2012 19:27:22

Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019) 0.00

0.0042163227 = product of:
  0.01686529 = sum of:
    0.01686529 = product of:
      0.03373058 = sum of:
        0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373058 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date: 20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Lewandowski, D.: How can library materials be ranked in the OPAC? (2009) 0.00
```
0.0039499956 = product of:
  0.015799982 = sum of:
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=2810,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
```
Abstract

Some Online Public Access Catalogues offer a ranking component. However, ranking there is merely text-based and is doomed to fail due to limited text in bibliographic data. The main assumption for the talk is that we are in a situation where the appropriate ranking factors for OPACs should be defined, while the implementation is no major problem. We must define what we want, and not so much focus on the technical work. Some deep thinking is necessary on the "perfect results set" and how we can achieve it through ranking. The talk presents a set of potential ranking factors and clustering possibilities for further discussion. A look at commercial Web search engines could provide us with ideas how ranking can be improved with additional factors. Search engines are way beyond pure text-based ranking and apply ranking factors in the groups like popularity, freshness, personalisation, etc. The talk describes the main factors used in search engines and how derivatives of these could be used for libraries' purposes. The goal of ranking is to provide the user with the best-suitable results on top of the results list. How can this goal be achieved with the library catalogue and also concerning the library's different collections and databases? The assumption is that ranking of such materials is a complex problem and is yet nowhere near solved. Libraries should focus on ranking to improve user experience.

Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

Themes