Search (136 results, page 2 of 7)

0.0801318 = product of:
  0.12019769 = sum of:
    0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058109686 = score(doc=2810,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
    0.062088005 = product of:
      0.12417601 = sum of:
        0.12417601 = weight(_text_:engines in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12417601 = score(doc=2810,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.0785128 = product of:
  0.1177692 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=5771,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
    0.060833566 = product of:
      0.12166713 = sum of:
        0.12166713 = weight(_text_:engines in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12166713 = score(doc=5771,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.47632706 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In unserem Retrievaltest von Suchwerkzeugen im World Wide Web (Password 11/2000) schnitt die Suchmaschine Google am besten ab. Im Vergleich zu anderen Search Engines setzt Google kaum auf Informationslinguistik, sondern auf Algorithmen, die sich aus den Besonderheiten der Web-Dokumente ableiten lassen. Kernstück der informationsstatistischen Technik ist das "PageRank"- Verfahren (benannt nach dem Entwickler Larry Page), das aus der Hypertextstruktur des Web die "Popularität" von Seiten anhand ihrer ein- und ausgehenden Links berechnet. Google besticht durch das Angebot intuitiv verstehbarer Suchbildschirme sowie durch einige sehr nützliche "Kleinigkeiten" wie die Angabe des Rangs einer Seite, Highlighting, Suchen in der Seite, Suchen innerhalb eines Suchergebnisses usw., alles verstaut in einer eigenen Befehlsleiste innerhalb des Browsers. Ähnlich wie RealNames bietet Google mit dem Produkt "AdWords" den Aufkauf von Suchtermen an. Nach einer Reihe von nunmehr vier Password-Artikeln über InternetSuchwerkzeugen im Vergleich wollen wir abschließend zu einer Bewertung kommen. Wie ist der Stand der Technik bei Directories und Search Engines aus informationswissenschaftlicher Sicht einzuschätzen? Werden die "typischen" Internetnutzer, die ja in der Regel keine Information Professionals sind, adäquat bedient? Und können auch Informationsfachleute von den Suchwerkzeugen profitieren?

0.0785128 = product of:
  0.1177692 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=92,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
    0.060833566 = product of:
      0.12166713 = sum of:
        0.12166713 = weight(_text_:engines in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12166713 = score(doc=92,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.47632706 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64430.

Source

Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a

0.07789321 = product of:
  0.11683981 = sum of:
    0.08135357 = weight(_text_:search in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08135357 = score(doc=93,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.46558946 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.035486247 = product of:
      0.070972495 = sum of:
        0.070972495 = weight(_text_:engines in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070972495 = score(doc=93,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.27785745 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Imagine a library containing 25 billion documents but with no centralized organization and no librarians. In addition, anyone may add a document at any time without telling anyone. You may feel sure that one of the documents contained in the collection has a piece of information that is vitally important to you, and, being impatient like most of us, you'd like to find it in a matter of seconds. How would you go about doing it? Posed in this way, the problem seems impossible. Yet this description is not too different from the World Wide Web, a huge, highly-disorganized collection of documents in many different formats. Of course, we're all familiar with search engines (perhaps you found this article using one) so we know that there is a solution. This article will describe Google's PageRank algorithm and how it returns pages from the web's collection of 25 billion documents that match search criteria so well that "google" has become a widely used verb. Most search engines, including Google, continually run an army of computer programs that retrieve pages from the web, index the words in each document, and store this information in an efficient format. Each time a user asks for a web search using a search phrase, such as "search engine," the search engine determines all the pages on the web that contains the words in the search phrase. (Perhaps additional information such as the distance between the words "search" and "engine" will be noted as well.) Here is the problem: Google now claims to index 25 billion pages. Roughly 95% of the text in web pages is composed from a mere 10,000 words. This means that, for most searches, there will be a huge number of pages containing the words in the search phrase. What is needed is a means of ranking the importance of the pages that fit the search criteria so that the pages can be sorted with the most important pages at the top of the list. One way to determine the importance of pages is to use a human-generated ranking. For instance, you may have seen pages that consist mainly of a large number of links to other resources in a particular area of interest. Assuming the person maintaining this page is reliable, the pages referenced are likely to be useful. Of course, the list may quickly fall out of date, and the person maintaining the list may miss some important pages, either unintentionally or as a result of an unstated bias. Google's PageRank algorithm assesses the importance of web pages without human evaluation of the content. In fact, Google feels that the value of its service is largely in its ability to provide unbiased results to search queries; Google claims, "the heart of our software is PageRank." As we'll see, the trick is to ask the web itself to rank the importance of pages.

0.07774002 = product of:
  0.11661003 = sum of:
    0.0664249 = weight(_text_:search in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0664249 = score(doc=3548,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
    0.05018513 = product of:
      0.10037026 = sum of:
        0.10037026 = weight(_text_:engines in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10037026 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A powers-of-two algorithm is described that automatically creates discrete, well-defined, and unique result sets, displaying them in decreasing order of likely relevance. All computations are transparent, and a simple query form allows the searcher to focus on the choice of terms and their sequence - an implicit indicator of their relative importance. The program can be used with traditional databases or with search engines designed for the WWW. It also can be used with an intelligent agent to search the Web with a pushdown store, returning only those items that best reflect the searcher's stated interests

0.07588659 = product of:
  0.11382988 = sum of:
    0.037957087 = weight(_text_:search in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037957087 = score(doc=393,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.21722981 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
    0.075872794 = product of:
      0.15174559 = sum of:
        0.15174559 = weight(_text_:engines in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15174559 = score(doc=393,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.59408426 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study employed benchmarking and intellectual relevance judgment in evaluating Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yahoo! Kids, and Ask Kids on 30 queries that children formulated to find information for specific tasks. Retrieved hits on given queries were benchmarked to Google's and Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits retrieved. Relevancy of hits was judged on a graded scale; precision was calculated using the precision-at-ten metric (P@10). Yahoo! and Bing produced a similar percentage in hit overlap with Google (nearly 30%), but differed in the ranking of hits. Ask Kids retrieved 11% in hit overlap with Google versus 3% by Yahoo! Kids. The engines retrieved 26 hits across query clusters that overlapped with Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits. Precision (P) that the engines produced across the queries was P = 0.48 for relevant hits, and P = 0.28 for partially relevant hits. Precision by Ask Kids was P = 0.44 for relevant hits versus P = 0.21 by Yahoo! Kids. Bing produced the highest total precision (TP) of relevant hits (TP = 0.86) across the queries, and Yahoo! Kids yielded the lowest (TP = 0.47). Average precision (AP) of relevant hits was AP = 0.56 by leading engines versus AP = 0.29 by small engines. In contrast, average precision of partially relevant hits was AP = 0.83 by small engines versus AP = 0.33 by leading engines. Average precision of relevant hits across the engines was highest on two-word queries and lowest on one-word queries. Google performed best on natural language queries; Bing did the same (P = 0.69) on two-word queries. The findings have implications for search engine ranking algorithms, relevance theory, search engine design, research design, and information literacy.

0.07052815 = product of:
  0.105792224 = sum of:
    0.08876401 = weight(_text_:search in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08876401 = score(doc=56,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5079997 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

0.06476976 = product of:
  0.09715463 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
    0.05018513 = product of:
      0.10037026 = sum of:
        0.10037026 = weight(_text_:engines in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10037026 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Compares the performance of partial match options, LEXIS/NEXIS's Freestyle, with that of traditional Boolean retrieval. Defines natural language and the natural language search engines currently available. Although the Boolean searches had better results more often than the Freestyle searches, neither mechanism demonstrated superior performance for every query. These results do not in any way prove the superiority of partial match techniques or exact match techniques, but they do suggest that different queries demand different techniques. Further study and analysis are needed to determine which elements of a query make it best suited for partial match or exact match retrieval

0.06418283 = product of:
  0.09627424 = sum of:
    0.05325841 = weight(_text_:search in 6) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05325841 = score(doc=6,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.30479985 = fieldWeight in 6, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6)
    0.043015826 = product of:
      0.08603165 = sum of:
        0.08603165 = weight(_text_:engines in 6) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08603165 = score(doc=6,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 6, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Why doesn't your home page appear on the first page of search results, even when you query your own name? How do other Web pages always appear at the top? What creates these powerful rankings? And how? The first book ever about the science of Web page rankings, "Google's PageRank and Beyond" supplies the answers to these and other questions and more. The book serves two very different audiences: the curious science reader and the technical computational reader. The chapters build in mathematical sophistication, so that the first five are accessible to the general academic reader. While other chapters are much more mathematical in nature, each one contains something for both audiences. For example, the authors include entertaining asides such as how search engines make money and how the Great Firewall of China influences research. The book includes an extensive background chapter designed to help readers learn more about the mathematics of search engines, and it contains several MATLAB codes and links to sample Web data sets. The philosophy throughout is to encourage readers to experiment with the ideas and algorithms in the text. Any business seriously interested in improving its rankings in the major search engines can benefit from the clear examples, sample code, and list of resources provided. It includes: many illustrative examples and entertaining asides; MATLAB code; accessible and informal style; and complete and self-contained section for mathematics review.

Content

Inhalt: Chapter 1. Introduction to Web Search Engines: 1.1 A Short History of Information Retrieval - 1.2 An Overview of Traditional Information Retrieval - 1.3 Web Information Retrieval Chapter 2. Crawling, Indexing, and Query Processing: 2.1 Crawling - 2.2 The Content Index - 2.3 Query Processing Chapter 3. Ranking Webpages by Popularity: 3.1 The Scene in 1998 - 3.2 Two Theses - 3.3 Query-Independence Chapter 4. The Mathematics of Google's PageRank: 4.1 The Original Summation Formula for PageRank - 4.2 Matrix Representation of the Summation Equations - 4.3 Problems with the Iterative Process - 4.4 A Little Markov Chain Theory - 4.5 Early Adjustments to the Basic Model - 4.6 Computation of the PageRank Vector - 4.7 Theorem and Proof for Spectrum of the Google Matrix Chapter 5. Parameters in the PageRank Model: 5.1 The a Factor - 5.2 The Hyperlink Matrix H - 5.3 The Teleportation Matrix E Chapter 6. The Sensitivity of PageRank; 6.1 Sensitivity with respect to alpha - 6.2 Sensitivity with respect to H - 6.3 Sensitivity with respect to vT - 6.4 Other Analyses of Sensitivity - 6.5 Sensitivity Theorems and Proofs Chapter 7. The PageRank Problem as a Linear System: 7.1 Properties of (I - alphaS) - 7.2 Properties of (I - alphaH) - 7.3 Proof of the PageRank Sparse Linear System Chapter 8. Issues in Large-Scale Implementation of PageRank: 8.1 Storage Issues - 8.2 Convergence Criterion - 8.3 Accuracy - 8.4 Dangling Nodes - 8.5 Back Button Modeling
Chapter 9. Accelerating the Computation of PageRank: 9.1 An Adaptive Power Method - 9.2 Extrapolation - 9.3 Aggregation - 9.4 Other Numerical Methods Chapter 10. Updating the PageRank Vector: 10.1 The Two Updating Problems and their History - 10.2 Restarting the Power Method - 10.3 Approximate Updating Using Approximate Aggregation - 10.4 Exact Aggregation - 10.5 Exact vs. Approximate Aggregation - 10.6 Updating with Iterative Aggregation - 10.7 Determining the Partition - 10.8 Conclusions Chapter 11. The HITS Method for Ranking Webpages: 11.1 The HITS Algorithm - 11.2 HITS Implementation - 11.3 HITS Convergence - 11.4 HITS Example - 11.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of HITS - 11.6 HITS's Relationship to Bibliometrics - 11.7 Query-Independent HITS - 11.8 Accelerating HITS - 11.9 HITS Sensitivity Chapter 12. Other Link Methods for Ranking Webpages: 12.1 SALSA - 12.2 Hybrid Ranking Methods - 12.3 Rankings based on Traffic Flow Chapter 13. The Future of Web Information Retrieval: 13.1 Spam - 13.2 Personalization - 13.3 Clustering - 13.4 Intelligent Agents - 13.5 Trends and Time-Sensitive Search - 13.6 Privacy and Censorship - 13.7 Library Classification Schemes - 13.8 Data Fusion Chapter 14. Resources for Web Information Retrieval: 14.1 Resources for Getting Started - 14.2 Resources for Serious Study Chapter 15. The Mathematics Guide: 15.1 Linear Algebra - 15.2 Perron-Frobenius Theory - 15.3 Markov Chains - 15.4 Perron Complementation - 15.5 Stochastic Complementation - 15.6 Censoring - 15.7 Aggregation - 15.8 Disaggregation

0.060110323 = product of:
  0.09016548 = sum of:
    0.06973162 = weight(_text_:search in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06973162 = score(doc=2239,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 2239, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2239)
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=2239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2239, 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=2239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Genetic-based evolutionary learning algorithms, such as genetic algorithms (GAs) and genetic programming (GP), have been applied to information retrieval (IR) since the 1980s. Recently, GP has been applied to a new IR taskdiscovery of ranking functions for Web search-and has achieved very promising results. However, in our prior research, only one fitness function has been used for GP-based learning. It is unclear how other fitness functions may affect ranking function discovery for Web search, especially since it is weIl known that choosing a proper fitness function is very important for the effectiveness and efficiency of evolutionary algorithms. In this article, we report our experience in contrasting different fitness function designs an GP-based learning using a very large Web corpus. Our results indicate that the design of fitness functions is instrumental in performance improvement. We also give recommendations an the design of fitness functions for genetic-based information retrieval experiments.

Date

31. 5.2004 19:22:06

0.05552859 = product of:
  0.08329288 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=3457,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 3457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=3457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 3457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

When people search for documents, they eventually want content, not words. Hence, search engines should relate documents more by their underlying concepts than by the words they contain. One promising technique to do so is Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI). LSI dramatically reduces the dimension of the document space by mapping it into a space spanned by conceptual indices. Empirically, the number of concepts that can represent the documents are far fewer than the great variety of words in the textual representation. Although this almost obviates the problem of lexical matching, the mapping incurs a high computational cost compared to document parsing, indexing, query matching, and updating. This article accomplishes several things. First, it shows how the technique underlying LSI is just one example of a unitary operator, for which there are computationally more attractive alternatives. Second, it proposes the Haar transform as such an alternative, as it is memory efficient, and can be computed in linear to sublinear time. Third, it generalizes LSI by a multiresolution representation of the document space. The approach not only preserves the advantages of LSI at drastically reduced computational costs, it also opens a spectrum of possibilities for new research.

0.05552859 = product of:
  0.08329288 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=10,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Today, when searching for information on the WWW, one usually performs a query through a term-based search engine. These engines return, as the query's result, a list of Web pages whose contents matches the query. For broad-topic queries, such searches often result in a huge set of retrieved documents, many of which are irrelevant to the user. However, much information is contained in the link-structure of the WWW. Information such as which pages are linked to others can be used to augment search algorithms. In this context, Jon Kleinberg introduced the notion of two distinct types of Web pages: hubs and authorities. Kleinberg argued that hubs and authorities exhibit a mutually reinforcing relationship: a good hub will point to many authorities, and a good authority will be pointed at by many hubs. In light of this, he dervised an algoirthm aimed at finding authoritative pages. We present SALSA, a new stochastic approach for link-structure analysis, which examines random walks on graphs derived from the link-structure. We show that both SALSA and Kleinberg's Mutual Reinforcement approach employ the same metaalgorithm. We then prove that SALSA is quivalent to a weighted in degree analysis of the link-sturcutre of WWW subgraphs, making it computationally more efficient than the Mutual reinforcement approach. We compare that results of applying SALSA to the results derived through Kleinberg's approach. These comparisions reveal a topological Phenomenon called the TKC effectwhich, in certain cases, prevents the Mutual reinforcement approach from identifying meaningful authorities.

0.05551693 = product of:
  0.08327539 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
    0.043015826 = product of:
      0.08603165 = sum of:
        0.08603165 = weight(_text_:engines in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08603165 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

User interest as a very dynamic information need is often ignored in most existing information retrieval systems. In this research, we present the results of experiments designed to evaluate the performance of a real-time interest model (RIM) that attempts to identify the dynamic and changing query level interests regarding social media outputs. Unlike most existing ranking methods, our ranking approach targets calculation of the probability that user interest in the content of the document is subject to very dynamic user interest change. We describe 2 formulations of the model (real-time interest vector space and real-time interest language model) stemming from classical relevance ranking methods and develop a novel methodology for evaluating the performance of RIM using Amazon Mechanical Turk to collect (interest-based) relevance judgments on a daily basis. Our results show that the model usually, although not always, performs better than baseline results obtained from commercial web search engines. We identify factors that affect RIM performance and outline plans for future research.

0.051579654 = product of:
  0.07736948 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=6973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 6973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6973)
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=6973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Proposes that signature files be used as a viable alternative to other indexing strategies such as inverted files for searching through large volumes of text. Demonstrates through simulation, that search times can be further reduced by enhancing the basic signature file concept using deterministic partitioning algorithms which eliminate the need for an exhaustive search of the entire signature file. Reports research to evaluate the performance of some deterministic partitioning algorithms in a non simulated environment using 276 MB of raw newspaper text (taken from the Wall Street Journal) and real user queries. Presents a selection of results to illustrate trends and highlight important aspects of the performance of these methods under realistic rather than simulated operating conditions. As a result of the research reported here certain aspects of this approach to signature files are shown to be found wanting and require improvement. Suggests lines of future research on the partitioning of signature files

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

0.051579654 = product of:
  0.07736948 = sum of:
    0.056935627 = weight(_text_:search in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056935627 = score(doc=2419,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.

Date

16.11.2008 16:22:48

0.05010998 = product of:
  0.07516497 = sum of:
    0.04648775 = weight(_text_:search in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04648775 = score(doc=2806,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2660511 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
    0.028677218 = product of:
      0.057354435 = sum of:
        0.057354435 = weight(_text_:engines in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057354435 = score(doc=2806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.22454272 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Bitte suchen Sie alle Unterlagen, die im PC zum Ibelshäuser-Vertrag in Sprockhövel gespeichert sind. Finden Sie alles, was wir haben - Dokumente, Tabellen, Präsentationen, Scans, E-Mails. Und erledigen Sie das gleich! « Wer diese Aufgabe an das Windows-eigene Suchmodul vergibt, wird zwangsläufig enttäuscht. Denn das Betriebssystem beherrscht weder die formatübergreifende Recherche noch die Kontextsuche, die für solche komplexen Aufträge nötig sind. Professionelle Desktop-Suchmaschinen erledigen Aufgaben dieser Art jedoch im Handumdrehen - genauer gesagt in einer einzigen Sekunde. Spitzenprogramme wie Global Brain benötigen dafür nicht einmal umfangreiche Abfrageformulare. Es genügt, einen Satz im Eingabefeld zu formulieren, der das Thema der gewünschten Dokumente eingrenzt. Dabei suchen die Programme über alle Laufwerke, die sich auf dem System einbinden lassen - also auch im Netzwerk-Ordner (Shared Folder), sofern dieser freigegeben wurde. Allen Testkandidaten - mit Ausnahme von Search 32 - gemeinsam ist, dass sie weitaus bessere Rechercheergebnisse abliefern als Windows, deutlich schneller arbeiten und meist auch in den Online-Postfächern stöbern. Wer schon öfter vergeblich über die Windows-Suche nach wichtigen Dokumenten gefahndet hat, kommt angesichts der Qualität der Search-Engines kaum mehr um die Anschaffung eines Desktop-Suchtools herum. Aber Microsoft will nachbessern. Für den Windows-XP-Nachfolger Longhorn wirbt der Hersteller vor allem mit dem Hinweis auf das neue Dateisystem WinFS, das sämtliche Files auf der Festplatte über Meta-Tags indiziert und dem Anwender damit lange Suchläufe erspart. So sollen sich anders als bei Windows XP alle Dateien zu bestimmten Themen in wenigen Sekunden auflisten lassen - unabhängig vom Format und vom physikalischen Speicherort der Files. Für die Recherche selbst ist dann weder der Dateiname noch das Erstelldatum ausschlaggebend. Anhand der kontextsensitiven Suche von WinFS kann der Anwender einfach einen Suchbefehl wie »Vertragsabschluss mit Firma XYZ, Neunkirchen/Saar« eingeben, der dann ohne Umwege zum Ziel führt."

Object

Search 32 8.1

0.050012853 = product of:
  0.15003856 = sum of:
    0.15003856 = weight(_text_:search in 4744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15003856 = score(doc=4744,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.8586762 = fieldWeight in 4744, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4744)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.047340807 = product of:
  0.14202242 = sum of:
    0.14202242 = weight(_text_:search in 4520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14202242 = score(doc=4520,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.8127996 = fieldWeight in 4520, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4520)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on a probablistic model, proposes strategies for the initial search and an intermediate search. Retrieval experiences with the Cranfield collection of 1,400 documents show that this initial search strategy is better than conventional search strategies both in terms of retrieval effectiveness and in terms of the number of queries that retrieve relevant documents. The intermediate search is a useful substitute for a relevance feedback search. A cluster search would be an effective alternative strategy.

0.047206 = product of:
  0.070809 = sum of:
    0.0469695 = weight(_text_:search in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0469695 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
    0.0238395 = product of:
      0.047679 = sum of:
        0.047679 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047679 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Keyword based querying has been an immediate and efficient way to specify and retrieve related information that the user inquired. However, conventional document ranking based on an automatic assessment of document relevance to the query may not be the best approach when little information is given. Proposes an idea to integrate 2 existing techniques, query expansion and relevance feedback to achieve a concept-based information search for the Web

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.04626411 = product of:
  0.06939616 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Fast, effective, and adaptable techniques are needed to automatically organize and retrieve information an the ever-increasing World Wide Web. In that respect, different strategies have been suggested to take hypertext links into account. For example, hyperlinks have been used to (1) enhance document representation, (2) improve document ranking by propagating document score, (3) provide an indicator of popularity, and (4) find hubs and authorities for a given topic. Although the TREC experiments have not demonstrated the usefulness of hyperlinks for retrieval, the hypertext structure is nevertheless an essential aspect of the Web, and as such, should not be ignored. The development of abstract models of the IR task was a key factor to the improvement of search engines. However, at this time conceptual tools for modeling the hypertext retrieval task are lacking, making it difficult to compare, improve, and reason an the existing techniques. This article proposes a general model for using hyperlinks based an Probabilistic Argumentation Systems, in which each of the above-mentioned techniques can be stated. This model will allow to discover some inconsistencies in the mentioned techniques, and to take a higher level and systematic approach for using hyperlinks for retrieval.