Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  1. Voorhees, E.M.: Implementing agglomerative hierarchic clustering algorithms for use in document retrieval (1986) 0.02 
    0.02197589 = product of:
  0.10987945 = sum of:
    0.10987945 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10987945 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476
  2. Efthimiadis, E.N.: Interactive query expansion : a user-based evaluation in a relevance feedback environment (2000) 0.02 
    0.019925216 = product of:
  0.09962608 = sum of:
    0.09962608 = weight(_text_:line in 5701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09962608 = score(doc=5701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.35049015 = fieldWeight in 5701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5701)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A user-centered investigation of interactive query expansion within the context of a relevance feedback system is presented in this article. Data were collected from 25 searches using the INSPEC database. The data collection mechanisms included questionnaires, transaction logs, and relevance evaluations. The results discuss issues that relate to query expansion, retrieval effectiveness, the correspondence of the on-line-to-off-line relevance judgments, and the selection of terms for query expansion by users (interactive query expansion). The main conclusions drawn from the results of the study are that: (1) one-third of the terms presented to users in a list of candidate terms for query expansion was identified by the users as potentially useful for query expansion. (2) These terms were mainly judged as either variant expressions (synonyms) or alternative (related) terms to the initial query terms. However, a substantial portion of the selected terms were identified as representing new ideas. (3) The relationships identified between the five best terms selected by the users for query expansion and the initial query terms were that: (a) 34% of the query expansion terms have no relationship or other type of correspondence with a query term; (b) 66% of the remaining query expansion terms have a relationship to the query terms. These relationships were: narrower term (46%), broader term (3%), related term (17%). (4) The results provide evidence for the effectiveness of interactive query expansion. The initial search produced on average three highly relevant documents; the query expansion search produced on average nine further highly relevant documents. The conclusions highlight the need for more research on: interactive query expansion, the comparative evaluation of automatic vs. interactive query expansion, the study of weighted Webbased or Web-accessible retrieval systems in operational environments, and for user studies in searching ranked retrieval systems in general
  3. Smeaton, A.F.; Rijsbergen, C.J. van: ¬The retrieval effects of query expansion on a feedback document retrieval system (1983) 0.02 
    0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2134)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    30. 3.2001 13:32:22
  4. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.02 
    0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
  5. López-Pujalte, C.; Guerrero-Bote, V.P.; Moya-Anegón, F. de: Order-based fitness functions for genetic algorithms applied to relevance feedback (2003) 0.02 
    0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Lopez-Pujalte and Guerrero-Bote test a relevance feedback genetic algorithm while varying its order based fitness functions and generating a function based upon the Ide dec-hi method as a base line. Using the non-zero weighted term types assigned to the query, and to the initially retrieved set of documents, as genes, a chromosome of equal length is created for each. The algorithm is provided with the chromosomes for judged relevant documents, for judged irrelevant documents, and for the irrelevant documents with their terms negated. The algorithm uses random selection of all possible genes, but gives greater likelihood to those with higher fitness values. When the fittest chromosome of a previous population is eliminated it is restored while the least fittest of the new population is eliminated in its stead. A crossover probability of .8 and a mutation probability of .2 were used with 20 generations. Three fitness functions were utilized; the Horng and Yeh function which takes into account the position of relevant documents, and two new functions, one based on accumulating the cosine similarity for retrieved documents, the other on stored fixed-recall-interval precessions. The Cranfield collection was used with the first 15 documents retrieved from 33 queries chosen to have at least 3 relevant documents in the first 15 and at least 5 relevant documents not initially retrieved. Precision was calculated at fixed recall levels using the residual collection method which removes viewed documents. One of the three functions improved the original retrieval by127 percent, while the Ide dec-hi method provided a 120 percent improvement.
  6. Fuhr, N.: Ranking-Experimente mit gewichteter Indexierung (1986) 0.02 
    0.016481917 = product of:
  0.08240958 = sum of:
    0.08240958 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08240958 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    14. 6.2015 22:12:44
  7. Fuhr, N.: Rankingexperimente mit gewichteter Indexierung (1986) 0.02 
    0.016481917 = product of:
  0.08240958 = sum of:
    0.08240958 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08240958 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2051)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    14. 6.2015 22:12:56
  8. Wills, R.S.: Google's PageRank : the math behind the search engine (2006) 0.01 
    0.014089256 = product of:
  0.070446275 = sum of:
    0.070446275 = weight(_text_:line in 5954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070446275 = score(doc=5954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 5954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5954)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Approximately 91 million American adults use the Internet on a typical day The number-one Internet activity is reading and writing e-mail. Search engine use is next in line and continues to increase in popularity. In fact, survey findings indicate that nearly 60 million American adults use search engines on a given day. Even though there are many Internet search engines, Google, Yahoo!, and MSN receive over 81% of all search requests. Despite claims that the quality of search provided by Yahoo! and MSN now equals that of Google, Google continues to thrive as the search engine of choice, receiving over 46% of all search requests, nearly double the volume of Yahoo! and over four times that of MSN. I use Google's search engine on a daily basis and rarely request information from other search engines. One day, I decided to visit the homepages of Google. Yahoo!, and MSN to compare the quality of search results. Coffee was on my mind that day, so I entered the simple query "coffee" in the search box at each homepage. Table 1 shows the top ten (unsponsored) results returned by each search engine. Although ordered differently, two webpages, www.peets.com and www.coffeegeek.com, appear in all three top ten lists. In addition, each pairing of top ten lists has two additional results in common. Depending on the information I hoped to obtain about coffee by using the search engines, I could argue that any one of the three returned better results: however, I was not looking for a particular webpage, so all three listings of search results seemed of equal quality. Thus, I plan to continue using Google. My decision is indicative of the problem Yahoo!, MSN, and other search engine companies face in the quest to obtain a larger percentage of Internet search volume. Search engine users are loyal to one or a few search engines and are generally happy with search results. Thus, as long as Google continues to provide results deemed high in quality, Google likely will remain the top search engine. But what set Google apart from its competitors in the first place? The answer is PageRank. In this article I explain this simple mathematical algorithm that revolutionized Web search.
  9. MacFarlane, A.; Robertson, S.E.; McCann, J.A.: Parallel computing for passage retrieval (2004) 0.01 
    0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=5108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5108, 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=5108)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 18:30:22
  10. Faloutsos, C.: Signature files (1992) 0.01 
    0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 3499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=3499,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3499, 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=3499)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    7. 5.1999 15:22:48
  11. Losada, D.E.; Barreiro, A.: Emebedding term similarity and inverse document frequency into a logical model of information retrieval (2003) 0.01 
    0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=1422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2003 19:27:23
  12. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01 
    0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  13. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.01 
    0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  14. Ravana, S.D.; Rajagopal, P.; Balakrishnan, V.: Ranking retrieval systems using pseudo relevance judgments (2015) 0.01 
    0.009712063 = product of:
  0.048560314 = sum of:
    0.048560314 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048560314 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    18. 9.2018 18:22:56
  15. Chang, C.-H.; Hsu, C.-C.: Integrating query expansion and conceptual relevance feedback for personalized Web information retrieval (1998) 0.01 
    0.009614452 = product of:
  0.048072256 = sum of:
    0.048072256 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048072256 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
  16. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.01 
    0.009614452 = product of:
  0.048072256 = sum of:
    0.048072256 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048072256 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
  17. Cross-language information retrieval (1998) 0.01 
    0.008805784 = product of:
  0.04402892 = sum of:
    0.04402892 = weight(_text_:line in 6299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04402892 = score(doc=6299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.15489621 = fieldWeight in 6299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=6299)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    The retrieved output from a query including the phrase 'big rockets' may be, for instance, a sentence containing 'giant rocket' which is semantically ranked above 'military ocket'. David Hull (Xerox Research Centre, Grenoble) describes an implementation of a weighted Boolean model for Spanish-English CLIR. Users construct Boolean-type queries, weighting each term in the query, which is then translated by an on-line dictionary before being applied to the database. Comparisons with the performance of unweighted free-form queries ('vector space' models) proved encouraging. Two contributions consider the evaluation of CLIR systems. In order to by-pass the time-consuming and expensive process of assembling a standard collection of documents and of user queries against which the performance of an CLIR system is manually assessed, Páriac Sheridan et al (ETH Zurich) propose a method based on retrieving 'seed documents'. This involves identifying a unique document in a database (the 'seed document') and, for a number of queries, measuring how fast it is retrieved. The authors have also assembled a large database of multilingual news documents for testing purposes. By storing the (fairly short) documents in a structured form tagged with descriptor codes (e.g. for topic, country and area), the test suite is easily expanded while remaining consistent for the purposes of testing. Douglas Ouard and Bonne Dorr (University of Maryland) describe an evaluation methodology which appears to apply LSI techniques in order to filter and rank incoming documents designed for testing CLIR systems. The volume provides the reader an excellent overview of several projects in CLIR. It is well supported with references and is intended as a secondary text for researchers and practitioners. It highlights the need for a good, general tutorial introduction to the field."
  18. Joss, M.W.; Wszola, S.: ¬The engines that can : text search and retrieval software, their strategies, and vendors (1996) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=5123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5123, 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=5123)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    12. 9.1996 13:56:22
  19. Kelledy, F.; Smeaton, A.F.: Signature files and beyond (1996) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=6973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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. Crestani, F.; Dominich, S.; Lalmas, M.; Rijsbergen, C.J.K. van: Mathematical, logical, and formal methods in information retrieval : an introduction to the special issue (2003) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 1451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=1451,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1451, 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=1451)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2003 19:27:36

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 29
  • d 4

Types

  • a 30
  • m 2
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications