Search (133 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  1. Archuby, C.G.: Interfaces se recuperacion para catalogos en linea con salidas ordenadas por probable relevancia (2000) 0.08 
    0.07815663 = product of:
  0.15631326 = sum of:
    0.12867 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12867 = score(doc=5727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.57570934 = fieldWeight in 5727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5727)
    0.027643247 = product of:
      0.08292974 = sum of:
        0.08292974 = weight(_text_:29 in 5727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08292974 = score(doc=5727,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.5496386 = fieldWeight in 5727, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5727)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    29. 1.1996 18:23:13
    Source
    Ciencia da informacao. 29(2000) no.3, S.5-13
  2. Koumenides, C.L.; Shadbolt, N.R.: Ranking methods for entity-oriented semantic web search (2014) 0.04 
    0.044930514 = product of:
  0.08986103 = sum of:
    0.07720201 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 1280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07720201 = score(doc=1280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3454256 = fieldWeight in 1280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1280)
    0.012659023 = product of:
      0.037977066 = sum of:
        0.037977066 = weight(_text_:systems in 1280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037977066 = score(doc=1280,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 1280, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1280)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article provides a technical review of semantic search methods used to support text-based search over formal Semantic Web knowledge bases. Our focus is on ranking methods and auxiliary processes explored by existing semantic search systems, outlined within broad areas of classification. We present reflective examples from the literature in some detail, which should appeal to readers interested in a deeper perspective on the various methods and systems implemented in the outlined literature. The presentation covers graph exploration and propagation methods, adaptations of classic probabilistic retrieval models, and query-independent link analysis via flexible extensions to the PageRank algorithm. Future research directions are discussed, including development of more cohesive retrieval models to unlock further potentials and uses, data indexing schemes, integration with user interfaces, and building community consensus for more systematic evaluation and gradual development.
  3. White, R.W.; Marchionini, G.: Examining the effectiveness of real-time query expansion (2007) 0.03 
    0.028717762 = product of:
  0.057435524 = sum of:
    0.051468004 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051468004 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.23028374 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
    0.00596752 = product of:
      0.01790256 = sum of:
        0.01790256 = weight(_text_:systems in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01790256 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Interactive query expansion (IQE) (c.f. [Efthimiadis, E. N. (1996). Query expansion. Annual Review of Information Systems and Technology, 31, 121-187]) is a potentially useful technique to help searchers formulate improved query statements, and ultimately retrieve better search results. However, IQE is seldom used in operational settings. Two possible explanations for this are that IQE is generally not integrated into searchers' established information-seeking behaviors (e.g., examining lists of documents), and it may not be offered at a time in the search when it is needed most (i.e., during the initial query formulation). These challenges can be addressed by coupling IQE more closely with familiar search activities, rather than as a separate functionality that searchers must learn. In this article we introduce and evaluate a variant of IQE known as Real-Time Query Expansion (RTQE). As a searcher enters their query in a text box at the interface, RTQE provides a list of suggested additional query terms, in effect offering query expansion options while the query is formulated. To investigate how the technique is used - and when it may be useful - we conducted a user study comparing three search interfaces: a baseline interface with no query expansion support; an interface that provides expansion options during query entry, and a third interface that provides options after queries have been submitted to a search system. The results show that offering RTQE leads to better quality initial queries, more engagement in the search, and an increase in the uptake of query expansion. However, the results also imply that care must be taken when implementing RTQE interactively. Our findings have broad implications for how IQE should be offered, and form part of our research on the development of techniques to support the increased use of query expansion.
  4. Berry, M.W.; Browne, M.: Understanding search engines : mathematical modeling and text retrieval (1999) 0.02 
    0.019300502 = product of:
  0.07720201 = sum of:
    0.07720201 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07720201 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3454256 = fieldWeight in 5777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5777)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This book discusses many of the key design issues for building search engines and emphazises the important role that applied mathematics can play in improving information retrieval. The authors discuss not only important data structures, algorithms, and software but also user-centered issues such as interfaces, manual indexing, and document preparation. They also present some of the current problems in information retrieval that many not be familiar to applied mathematicians and computer scientists and some of the driving computational methods (SVD, SDD) for automated conceptual indexing
  5. Berry, M.W.; Browne, M.: Understanding search engines : mathematical modeling and text retrieval (2005) 0.02 
    0.018196687 = product of:
  0.07278675 = sum of:
    0.07278675 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07278675 = score(doc=7,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.3256704 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The second edition of Understanding Search Engines: Mathematical Modeling and Text Retrieval follows the basic premise of the first edition by discussing many of the key design issues for building search engines and emphasizing the important role that applied mathematics can play in improving information retrieval. The authors discuss important data structures, algorithms, and software as well as user-centered issues such as interfaces, manual indexing, and document preparation. Significant changes bring the text up to date on current information retrieval methods: for example the addition of a new chapter on link-structure algorithms used in search engines such as Google. The chapter on user interface has been rewritten to specifically focus on search engine usability. In addition the authors have added new recommendations for further reading and expanded the bibliography, and have updated and streamlined the index to make it more reader friendly.
    Content
    Inhalt: Introduction Document File Preparation - Manual Indexing - Information Extraction - Vector Space Modeling - Matrix Decompositions - Query Representations - Ranking and Relevance Feedback - Searching by Link Structure - User Interface - Book Format Document File Preparation Document Purification and Analysis - Text Formatting - Validation - Manual Indexing - Automatic Indexing - Item Normalization - Inverted File Structures - Document File - Dictionary List - Inversion List - Other File Structures Vector Space Models Construction - Term-by-Document Matrices - Simple Query Matching - Design Issues - Term Weighting - Sparse Matrix Storage - Low-Rank Approximations Matrix Decompositions QR Factorization - Singular Value Decomposition - Low-Rank Approximations - Query Matching - Software - Semidiscrete Decomposition - Updating Techniques Query Management Query Binding - Types of Queries - Boolean Queries - Natural Language Queries - Thesaurus Queries - Fuzzy Queries - Term Searches - Probabilistic Queries Ranking and Relevance Feedback Performance Evaluation - Precision - Recall - Average Precision - Genetic Algorithms - Relevance Feedback Searching by Link Structure HITS Method - HITS Implementation - HITS Summary - PageRank Method - PageRank Adjustments - PageRank Implementation - PageRank Summary User Interface Considerations General Guidelines - Search Engine Interfaces - Form Fill-in - Display Considerations - Progress Indication - No Penalties for Error - Results - Test and Retest - Final Considerations Further Reading
  6. Zhang, W.; Korf, R.E.: Performance of linear-space search algorithms (1995) 0.02 
    0.017232765 = product of:
  0.06893106 = sum of:
    0.06893106 = product of:
      0.10339659 = sum of:
        0.044756405 = weight(_text_:systems in 4744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044756405 = score(doc=4744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 4744, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4744)
        0.058640182 = weight(_text_:29 in 4744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058640182 = score(doc=4744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 4744, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4744)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Search algorithms in artificial intelligence systems that use space linear in the search depth are employed in practice to solve difficult problems optimally, such as planning and scheduling. Studies the average-case performance of linear-space search algorithms, including depth-first branch-and-bound, iterative-deepening, and recursive best-first search
    Date
    2. 8.1996 10:29:15
  7. White, R.W.; Jose, J.M.; Ruthven, I.: Using top-ranking sentences to facilitate effective information access (2005) 0.02 
    0.01608375 = product of:
  0.064335 = sum of:
    0.064335 = weight(_text_:interfaces in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064335 = score(doc=3881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22349821 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04289195 = queryNorm
        0.28785467 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2107263 = idf(docFreq=655, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Web searchers typically fall to view search results beyond the first page nor fully examine those results presented to them. In this article we describe an approach that encourages a deeper examination of the contents of the document set retrieved in response to a searcher's query. The approach shifts the focus of perusal and interaction away from potentially uninformative document surrogates (such as titles, sentence fragments, and URLs) to actual document content, and uses this content to drive the information seeking process. Current search interfaces assume searchers examine results document-by-document. In contrast our approach extracts, ranks, and presents the contents of the top-ranked document set. We use query-relevant topranking sentences extracted from the top documents at retrieval time as fine-grained representations of topranked document content and, when combined in a ranked list, an overview of these documents. The interaction of the searcher provides implicit evidence that is used to reorder the sentences where appropriate. We evaluate our approach in three separate user studies, each applying these sentences in a different way. The findings of these studies show that top-ranking sentences can facilitate effective information access.
  8. Kekäläinen, J.: Binary and graded relevance in IR evaluations : comparison of the effects on ranking of IR systems (2005) 0.01 
    0.014815299 = product of:
  0.059261195 = sum of:
    0.059261195 = product of:
      0.08889179 = sum of:
        0.053707685 = weight(_text_:systems in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053707685 = score(doc=1036,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
        0.035184108 = weight(_text_:29 in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035184108 = score(doc=1036,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1036, 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=1036)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this study the rankings of IR systems based on binary and graded relevance in TREC 7 and 8 data are compared. Relevance of a sample TREC results is reassessed using a relevance scale with four levels: non-relevant, marginally relevant, fairly relevant, highly relevant. Twenty-one topics and 90 systems from TREC 7 and 20 topics and 121 systems from TREC 8 form the data. Binary precision, and cumulated gain, discounted cumulated gain and normalised discounted cumulated gain are the measures compared. Different weighting schemes for relevance levels are tested with cumulated gain measures. Kendall's rank correlations are computed to determine to what extent the rankings produced by different measures are similar. Weighting schemes from binary to emphasising highly relevant documents form a continuum, where the measures correlate strongly in the binary end, and less in the heavily weighted end. The results show the different character of the measures.
    Date
    26.12.2007 20:29:18
  9. Vechtomova, O.; Karamuftuoglu, M.: Lexical cohesion and term proximity in document ranking (2008) 0.01 
    0.013786211 = product of:
  0.055144843 = sum of:
    0.055144843 = product of:
      0.08271726 = sum of:
        0.03580512 = weight(_text_:systems in 2101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580512 = score(doc=2101,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 2101, 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=2101)
        0.04691214 = weight(_text_:29 in 2101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04691214 = score(doc=2101,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2101, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2101)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We demonstrate effective new methods of document ranking based on lexical cohesive relationships between query terms. The proposed methods rely solely on the lexical relationships between original query terms, and do not involve query expansion or relevance feedback. Two types of lexical cohesive relationship information between query terms are used in document ranking: short-distance collocation relationship between query terms, and long-distance relationship, determined by the collocation of query terms with other words. The methods are evaluated on TREC corpora, and show improvements over baseline systems.
    Date
    1. 8.2008 12:29:05
  10. Losada, D.E.; Barreiro, A.: Emebedding term similarity and inverse document frequency into a logical model of information retrieval (2003) 0.01 
    0.013715876 = product of:
  0.054863505 = sum of:
    0.054863505 = product of:
      0.082295254 = sum of:
        0.03580512 = weight(_text_:systems in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03580512 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1422, 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=1422)
        0.046490133 = weight(_text_:22 in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046490133 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1422, 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=1422)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We propose a novel approach to incorporate term similarity and inverse document frequency into a logical model of information retrieval. The ability of the logic to handle expressive representations along with the use of such classical notions are promising characteristics for IR systems. The approach proposed here has been efficiently implemented and experiments against test collections are presented.
    Date
    22. 3.2003 19:27:23
  11. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.01 
    0.012140779 = product of:
  0.048563115 = sum of:
    0.048563115 = product of:
      0.07284467 = sum of:
        0.037977066 = weight(_text_:systems in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037977066 = score(doc=2717,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Previous work an search-engine design has indicated that information-seekers may benefit from being given the opportunity to exploit multiple sources of evidence of document relatedness. Few existing systems, however, give users more than minimal control over the selections that may be made among methods of exploitation. By applying the methods of "document network analysis" (DNA), a unifying, graph-theoretic model of content-, collaboration-, and context-based systems (CCC) may be developed in which the nature of the similarities between types of document relatedness and document ranking are clarified. The usefulness of the approach to system design suggested by this model may be tested by constructing and evaluating a prototype system (UCXtra) that allows searchers to maintain control over the multiple ways in which document collections may be ranked and re-ranked.
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
  12. Ravana, S.D.; Rajagopal, P.; Balakrishnan, V.: Ranking retrieval systems using pseudo relevance judgments (2015) 0.01 
    0.012123236 = product of:
  0.048492946 = sum of:
    0.048492946 = product of:
      0.072739415 = sum of:
        0.031647556 = weight(_text_:systems in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031647556 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2591, 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=2591)
        0.04109186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04109186 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose In a system-based approach, replicating the web would require large test collections, and judging the relevancy of all documents per topic in creating relevance judgment through human assessors is infeasible. Due to the large amount of documents that requires judgment, there are possible errors introduced by human assessors because of disagreements. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This study explores exponential variation and document ranking methods that generate a reliable set of relevance judgments (pseudo relevance judgments) to reduce human efforts. These methods overcome problems with large amounts of documents for judgment while avoiding human disagreement errors during the judgment process. This study utilizes two key factors: number of occurrences of each document per topic from all the system runs; and document rankings to generate the alternate methods. Findings The effectiveness of the proposed method is evaluated using the correlation coefficient of ranked systems using mean average precision scores between the original Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) relevance judgments and pseudo relevance judgments. The results suggest that the proposed document ranking method with a pool depth of 100 could be a reliable alternative to reduce human effort and disagreement errors involved in generating TREC-like relevance judgments. Originality/value Simple methods proposed in this study show improvement in the correlation coefficient in generating alternate relevance judgment without human assessors while contributing to information retrieval evaluation.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    18. 9.2018 18:22:56
  13. Paris, L.A.H.; Tibbo, H.R.: Freestyle vs. Boolean : a comparison of partial and exact match retrieval systems (1998) 0.01 
    0.012062935 = product of:
  0.04825174 = sum of:
    0.04825174 = product of:
      0.07237761 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3329, 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=3329)
        0.041048124 = weight(_text_:29 in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041048124 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3329, 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=3329)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    12. 3.1999 10:29:27
  14. Chang, C.-H.; Hsu, C.-C.: Integrating query expansion and conceptual relevance feedback for personalized Web information retrieval (1998) 0.01 
    0.0120013915 = product of:
  0.048005566 = sum of:
    0.048005566 = product of:
      0.07200835 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
        0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040678866 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
    Source
    Computer networks and ISDN systems. 30(1998) nos.1/7, S.621-623
  15. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.01 
    0.0120013915 = product of:
  0.048005566 = sum of:
    0.048005566 = product of:
      0.07200835 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
        0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040678866 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  16. Kwok, K.L.: ¬A network approach to probabilistic information retrieval (1995) 0.01 
    0.010339659 = product of:
  0.041358635 = sum of:
    0.041358635 = product of:
      0.062037952 = sum of:
        0.026853843 = weight(_text_:systems in 5696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026853843 = score(doc=5696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5696, 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=5696)
        0.035184108 = weight(_text_:29 in 5696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035184108 = score(doc=5696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5696, 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=5696)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    29. 1.1996 18:42:14
    Source
    ACM transactions on information systems. 13(1995) no.3, S.324-353
  17. Kaszkiel, M.; Zobel, J.: Effective ranking with arbitrary passages (2001) 0.01 
    0.010339659 = product of:
  0.041358635 = sum of:
    0.041358635 = product of:
      0.062037952 = sum of:
        0.026853843 = weight(_text_:systems in 5764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026853843 = score(doc=5764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5764, 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=5764)
        0.035184108 = weight(_text_:29 in 5764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035184108 = score(doc=5764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5764, 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=5764)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Text retrieval systems store a great variety of documents, from abstracts, newspaper articles, and Web pages to journal articles, books, court transcripts, and legislation. Collections of diverse types of documents expose shortcomings in current approaches to ranking. Use of short fragments of documents, called passages, instead of whole documents can overcome these shortcomings: passage ranking provides convenient units of text to return to the user, can avoid the difficulties of comparing documents of different length, and enables identification of short blocks of relevant material among otherwise irrelevant text. In this article, we compare several kinds of passage in an extensive series of experiments. We introduce a new type of passage, overlapping fragments of either fixed or variable length. We show that ranking with these arbitrary passages gives substantial improvements in retrieval effectiveness over traditional document ranking schemes, particularly for queries on collections of long documents. Ranking with arbitrary passages shows consistent improvements compared to ranking with whole documents, and to ranking with previous passage types that depend on document structure or topic shifts in documents
    Date
    29. 9.2001 14:00:39
  18. Qi, Q.; Hessen, D.J.; Heijden, P.G.M. van der: Improving information retrieval through correspondenceanalysis instead of latent semantic analysis (2023) 0.01 
    0.010339659 = product of:
  0.041358635 = sum of:
    0.041358635 = product of:
      0.062037952 = sum of:
        0.026853843 = weight(_text_:systems in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026853843 = score(doc=1045,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 1045, 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=1045)
        0.035184108 = weight(_text_:29 in 1045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035184108 = score(doc=1045,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1045, 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=1045)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    15. 9.2023 12:28:29
    Source
    Journal of intelligent information systems [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-023-00815-y]
  19. Kelledy, F.; Smeaton, A.F.: Signature files and beyond (1996) 0.01 
    0.010286908 = product of:
  0.04114763 = sum of:
    0.04114763 = product of:
      0.061721444 = sum of:
        0.026853843 = weight(_text_:systems in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026853843 = score(doc=6973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 6973, 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=6973)
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=6973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6973, 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=6973)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  20. Dannenberg, R.B.; Birmingham, W.P.; Pardo, B.; Hu, N.; Meek, C.; Tzanetakis, G.: ¬A comparative evaluation of search techniques for query-by-humming using the MUSART testbed (2007) 0.01 
    0.010161275 = product of:
  0.0406451 = sum of:
    0.0406451 = product of:
      0.060967647 = sum of:
        0.031647556 = weight(_text_:systems in 269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031647556 = score(doc=269,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 269, 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=269)
        0.029320091 = weight(_text_:29 in 269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029320091 = score(doc=269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=269)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Query-by-humming systems offer content-based searching for melodies and require no special musical training or knowledge. Many such systems have been built, but there has not been much useful evaluation and comparison in the literature due to the lack of shared databases and queries. The MUSART project testbed allows various search algorithms to be compared using a shared framework that automatically runs experiments and summarizes results. Using this testbed, the authors compared algorithms based on string alignment, melodic contour matching, a hidden Markov model, n-grams, and CubyHum. Retrieval performance is very sensitive to distance functions and the representation of pitch and rhythm, which raises questions about some previously published conclusions. Some algorithms are particularly sensitive to the quality of queries. Our queries, which are taken from human subjects in a realistic setting, are quite difficult, especially for n-gram models. Finally, simulations on query-by-humming performance as a function of database size indicate that retrieval performance falls only slowly as the database size increases.
    Date
    29. 4.2007 19:45:32

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 117
  • d 13
  • m 1
  • pt 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 121
  • m 8
  • s 5
  • el 2
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications