Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Järvelin, K."
  1. Pirkola, A.; Järvelin, K.: Employing the resolution power of search keys (2001) 0.01
    0.01436062 = product of:
      0.043081857 = sum of:
        0.018680464 = product of:
          0.03736093 = sum of:
            0.03736093 = weight(_text_:29 in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03736093 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.024401393 = product of:
          0.048802786 = sum of:
            0.048802786 = weight(_text_:methods in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048802786 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.31093797 = fieldWeight in 5907, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5907)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    Search key resolution power is analyzed in the context of a request, i.e., among the set of search keys for the request. Methods of characterizing the resolution power of keys automatically are studied, and the effects search keys of varying resolution power have on retrieval effectiveness are analyzed. It is shown that it often is possible to identify the best key of a query while the discrimination between the remaining keys presents problems. It is also shown that query performance is improved by suitably using the best key in a structured query. The tests were run with InQuery in a subcollection of the TREC collection, which contained some 515,000 documents
    Date
    29. 9.2001 14:01:42
  2. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.01
    0.010217575 = product of:
      0.06130545 = sum of:
        0.06130545 = sum of:
          0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.034859132 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
                4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03903913 = queryNorm
              0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
          0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.026446318 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03903913 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
  3. Pirkola, A.; Hedlund, T.; Keskustalo, H.; Järvelin, K.: Dictionary-based cross-language information retrieval : problems, methods, and research findings (2001) 0.01
    0.008133798 = product of:
      0.048802786 = sum of:
        0.048802786 = product of:
          0.09760557 = sum of:
            0.09760557 = weight(_text_:methods in 3908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09760557 = score(doc=3908,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.62187594 = fieldWeight in 3908, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3908)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
  4. Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: ¬The evolution of library and information science 1965-1985 : a content analysis of journal titles (1993) 0.01
    0.006226822 = product of:
      0.03736093 = sum of:
        0.03736093 = product of:
          0.07472186 = sum of:
            0.07472186 = weight(_text_:29 in 4649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07472186 = score(doc=4649,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4649, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4649)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.129-144
  5. Kekäläinen, J.; Järvelin, K.: Using graded relevance assessments in IR evaluation (2002) 0.00
    0.004108188 = product of:
      0.024649128 = sum of:
        0.024649128 = product of:
          0.049298257 = sum of:
            0.049298257 = weight(_text_:methods in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049298257 = score(doc=5225,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.31409478 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Kekalainen and Jarvelin use what they term generalized, nonbinary recall and precision measures where recall is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the sum of relevance scores of all documents in the data base, and precision is the sum of the relevance scores of the retrieved documents divided by the number of documents where the relevance scores are real numbers between zero and one. Using the In-Query system and a text data base of 53,893 newspaper articles with 30 queries selected from those for which four relevance categories to provide recall measures were available, search results were evaluated by four judges. Searches were done by average key term weight, Boolean expression, and by average term weight where the terms are grouped by a synonym operator, and for each case with and without expansion of the original terms. Use of higher standards of relevance appears to increase the superiority of the best method. Some methods do a better job of getting the highly relevant documents but do not increase retrieval of marginal ones. There is evidence that generalized precision provides more equitable results, while binary precision provides undeserved merit to some methods. Generally graded relevance measures seem to provide additional insight into IR evaluation.
  6. Talvensaari, T.; Juhola, M.; Laurikkala, J.; Järvelin, K.: Corpus-based cross-language information retrieval in retrieval of highly relevant documents (2007) 0.00
    0.004108188 = product of:
      0.024649128 = sum of:
        0.024649128 = product of:
          0.049298257 = sum of:
            0.049298257 = weight(_text_:methods in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049298257 = score(doc=139,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.31409478 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Information retrieval systems' ability to retrieve highly relevant documents has become more and more important in the age of extremely large collections, such as the World Wide Web (WWW). The authors' aim was to find out how corpus-based cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) manages in retrieving highly relevant documents. They created a Finnish-Swedish comparable corpus from two loosely related document collections and used it as a source of knowledge for query translation. Finnish test queries were translated into Swedish and run against a Swedish test collection. Graded relevance assessments were used in evaluating the results and three relevance criterion levels-liberal, regular, and stringent-were applied. The runs were also evaluated with generalized recall and precision, which weight the retrieved documents according to their relevance level. The performance of the Comparable Corpus Translation system (COCOT) was compared to that of a dictionarybased query translation program; the two translation methods were also combined. The results indicate that corpus-based CUR performs particularly well with highly relevant documents. In average precision, COCOT even matched the monolingual baseline on the highest relevance level. The performance of the different query translation methods was further analyzed by finding out reasons for poor rankings of highly relevant documents.
  7. Kettunen, K.; Kunttu, T.; Järvelin, K.: To stem or lemmatize a highly inflectional language in a probabilistic IR environment? (2005) 0.00
    0.0029049278 = product of:
      0.017429566 = sum of:
        0.017429566 = product of:
          0.034859132 = sum of:
            0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 4395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034859132 = score(doc=4395,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 4395, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4395)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - To show that stem generation compares well with lemmatization as a morphological tool for a highly inflectional language for IR purposes in a best-match retrieval system. Design/methodology/approach - Effects of three different morphological methods - lemmatization, stemming and stem production - for Finnish are compared in a probabilistic IR environment (INQUERY). Evaluation is done using a four-point relevance scale which is partitioned differently in different test settings. Findings - Results show that stem production, a lighter method than morphological lemmatization, compares well with lemmatization in a best-match IR environment. Differences in performance between stem production and lemmatization are small and they are not statistically significant in most of the tested settings. It is also shown that hitherto a rather neglected method of morphological processing for Finnish, stemming, performs reasonably well although the stemmer used - a Porter stemmer implementation - is far from optimal for a morphologically complex language like Finnish. In another series of tests, the effects of compound splitting and derivational expansion of queries are tested. Practical implications - Usefulness of morphological lemmatization and stem generation for IR purposes can be estimated with many factors. On the average P-R level they seem to behave very close to each other in a probabilistic IR system. Thus, the choice of the used method with highly inflectional languages needs to be estimated along other dimensions too. Originality/value - Results are achieved using Finnish as an example of a highly inflectional language. The results are of interest for anyone who is interested in processing of morphological variation of a highly inflected language for IR purposes.
  8. Tuomaala, O.; Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: Evolution of library and information science, 1965-2005 : content analysis of journal articles (2014) 0.00
    0.0029049278 = product of:
      0.017429566 = sum of:
        0.017429566 = product of:
          0.034859132 = sum of:
            0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034859132 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.
  9. Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: LIS research across 50 years: content analysis of journal articles : offering an information-centric conception of memes (2022) 0.00
    0.0029049278 = product of:
      0.017429566 = sum of:
        0.017429566 = product of:
          0.034859132 = sum of:
            0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034859132 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).
  10. Halttunen, K.; Järvelin, K.: Assessing learning outcomes in two information retrieval learning environments (2005) 0.00
    0.0026686378 = product of:
      0.016011827 = sum of:
        0.016011827 = product of:
          0.032023653 = sum of:
            0.032023653 = weight(_text_:29 in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032023653 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    27.12.2007 11:59:29
  11. Järvelin, K.; Kristensen, J.; Niemi, T.; Sormunen, E.; Keskustalo, H.: ¬A deductive data model for query expansion (1996) 0.00
    0.0026446318 = product of:
      0.01586779 = sum of:
        0.01586779 = product of:
          0.03173558 = sum of:
            0.03173558 = weight(_text_:22 in 2230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03173558 = score(doc=2230,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2230, 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=2230)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Source
    Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (ACM SIGIR '96), Zürich, Switzerland, August 18-22, 1996. Eds.: H.P. Frei et al
  12. Saastamoinen, M.; Järvelin, K.: Search task features in work tasks of varying types and complexity (2017) 0.00
    0.0026446318 = product of:
      0.01586779 = sum of:
        0.01586779 = product of:
          0.03173558 = sum of:
            0.03173558 = weight(_text_:22 in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03173558 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3589, 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=3589)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Information searching in practice seldom is an end in itself. In work, work task (WT) performance forms the context, which information searching should serve. Therefore, information retrieval (IR) systems development/evaluation should take the WT context into account. The present paper analyzes how WT features: task complexity and task types, affect information searching in authentic work: the types of information needs, search processes, and search media. We collected data on 22 information professionals in authentic work situations in three organization types: city administration, universities, and companies. The data comprise 286 WTs and 420 search tasks (STs). The data include transaction logs, video recordings, daily questionnaires, interviews. and observation. The data were analyzed quantitatively. Even if the participants used a range of search media, most STs were simple throughout the data, and up to 42% of WTs did not include searching. WT's effects on STs are not straightforward: different WT types react differently to WT complexity. Due to the simplicity of authentic searching, the WT/ST types in interactive IR experiments should be reconsidered.
  13. Näppilä, T.; Järvelin, K.; Niemi, T.: ¬A tool for data cube construction from structurally heterogeneous XML documents (2008) 0.00
    0.0022038599 = product of:
      0.013223159 = sum of:
        0.013223159 = product of:
          0.026446318 = sum of:
            0.026446318 = weight(_text_:22 in 1369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026446318 = score(doc=1369,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03903913 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1369, 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=1369)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    9. 2.2008 17:22:42