Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

Stock, W.G.: On relevance distributions (2006) 0.13

0.12821087 = product of:
  0.1923163 = sum of:
    0.0929755 = weight(_text_:search in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0929755 = score(doc=5116,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.5321022 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
    0.099340804 = product of:
      0.19868161 = sum of:
        0.19868161 = weight(_text_:engines in 5116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19868161 = score(doc=5116,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.7778389 = fieldWeight in 5116, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract: There are at least three possible ways that documents are distributed by relevance: informetric (power law), inverse logistic, and dichotomous. The nature of the type of distribution has implications for the construction of relevance ranking algorithms for search engines, for automated (blind) relevance feedback, for user behavior when using Web search engines, for combining of outputs of search engines for metasearch, for topic detection and tracking, and for the methodology of evaluation of information retrieval systems.

Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001) 0.08
```
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?

Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich : Teil 1: Retrievaltests mit Known Item searches (2000) 0.08

0.07774002 = product of:
  0.11661003 = sum of:
    0.0664249 = weight(_text_:search in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0664249 = score(doc=5772,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.38015217 = fieldWeight in 5772, 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=5772)
    0.05018513 = product of:
      0.10037026 = sum of:
        0.10037026 = weight(_text_:engines in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10037026 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39294976 = fieldWeight in 5772, 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=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract: Web Search Engines und Web Directories sind die technologische Speerspitze im High-Tech-Bereich Internet. Als Suchassistenten gestatten sie Laien und Profi-Searchern gleichsam einen optimalen Einstieg in die Vielfalt der Informationsquellen des World Wide Web, Sie ermöglichen durch eine Kombination aus hierarchisch geordnetem kontrollierten Vokabular, automatischer Indexierung sowie diverser Synonym-, Homonym- und Fachwörterbücher einen zielgenauen Zugriff auf WebSites. - Stop! Glauben Sie das? Wir waren skeptisch und haben Suchmaschinen und Suchverzeichnisse genau angeschaut. Durchgeführt wurde ein Retrievaltest, der unterschiedliche Suchsysteme mit jeweils dergleichen Anfrage konfrontierte, auf die wir bereits die Antwort wussten ("Known Item Search"). Skizziert werden zudem bisher ausgearbeitete empirische Erhebungen zur Evaluation von Web-Retrievalsystemen, angefangen von seriösen informationswissenschaftlichen Forschungen bis hinzu den Tests in Publikumszeitschriften

Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Intellectual property information : A comparative analysis of main information providers (2006) 0.04
```
0.035505608 = product of:
  0.10651682 = sum of:
    0.10651682 = weight(_text_:search in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10651682 = score(doc=210,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6095997 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

After modeling expert user needs with regard to intellectual property information, we analyze and compare the main providers in this specific information area (Thomson DIALOG, Esp@cenet by the European Patent Office, Questel-Orbit, and STN International) in terms of system content and system functionality. The key question is whether the main providers are able to satisfy these expert user needs. For patent information, some special retrieval features such as chemical structure search (including Markush search), patent family references and citations search, biosequence search, and basic informetric functionality such as ranking, mapping, and visualization of information flows are realized. Considering the results of information science research, the practice of patent information shows unexhausted improvement opportunities (e.g., the application of bibliographic patent coupling and co-patent-citation for mapping patents, patent assignees, and technology specialties). For trademark search, users need multiple truncated search (realized) as well as phonetic search and image retrieval (not realized yet).

Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Recherchieren im Internet (2004) 0.02

0.01816343 = product of:
  0.054490287 = sum of:
    0.054490287 = product of:
      0.10898057 = sum of:
        0.10898057 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10898057 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 27.11.2005 18:04:22

Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.01

0.011352143 = product of:
  0.03405643 = sum of:
    0.03405643 = product of:
      0.06811286 = sum of:
        0.06811286 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06811286 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

Schmidt, S.; Stock, W.G.: Collective indexing of emotions in images : a study in emotional information retrieval (2009) 0.01
```
0.011183213 = product of:
  0.03354964 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=2792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 2792, 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=2792)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

Some documents provoke emotions in people viewing them. Will it be possible to describe emotions consistently and use this information in retrieval systems? We tested collective (statistically aggregated) emotion indexing using images as examples. Considering psychological results, basic emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness. This study follows an approach developed by Lee and Neal (2007) for music emotion retrieval and applies scroll bars for tagging basic emotions and their intensities. A sample comprising 763 persons tagged emotions caused by images (retrieved from www.Flickr.com) applying scroll bars and (linguistic) tags. Using SPSS, we performed descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. For more than half of the images, the test persons have clear emotion favorites. There are prototypical images for given emotions. The document-specific consistency of tagging using a scroll bar is, for some images, very high. Most of the (most commonly used) linguistic tags are on the basic level (in the sense of Rosch's basic level theory). The distributions of the linguistic tags in our examples follow an inverse power-law. Hence, it seems possible to apply collective image emotion tagging to image information systems and to present a new search option for basic emotions. This article is one of the first steps in the research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR).

Stock, W.G.: Qualitätskriterien von Suchmaschinen : Checkliste für Retrievalsysteme (2000) 0.01

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 5773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=5773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5773, 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=5773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source: Password. 2000, H.5, S.22-31

Stock, W.G.: Hochschulmanagement, Information Appliances, Fairness als Grundsatz : Information und Mobilität (2002) 0.01

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 1364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=1364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1364, 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=1364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 22. 2.2003 19:39:36

Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes