Search (58 results, page 1 of 3)

0.035398364 = product of:
  0.106195085 = sum of:
    0.106195085 = weight(_text_:sites in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.106195085 = score(doc=5152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26002133 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049739745 = queryNorm
        0.40840912 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Waters and Amoudi describe GeoSearcher, a prototype ranking program that arranges search engine results along a geo-spatial dimension without the provision of geo-spatial meta-tags or the use of geo-spatial feature extraction. GeoSearcher uses URL analysis, IptoLL, Whois, and the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names to determine site location. It accepts the first 200 sites returned by a search engine, identifies the coordinates, calculates their distance from a reference point and ranks in ascending order by this value. For any retrieved site the system checks if it has already been located in the current session, then sends the domain name to Whois to generate a return of a two letter country code and an area code. With no success the name is stripped one level and resent. If this fails the top level domain is tested for being a country code. Any remaining unmatched names go to IptoLL. Distance is calculated using the center point of the geographic area and a provided reference location. A test run on a set of 100 URLs from a search was successful in locating 90 sites. Eighty three pages could be manually found and 68 had sufficient information to verify location determination. Of these 65 ( 95%) had been assigned reasonably correct geographic locations. A random set of URLs used instead of a search result, yielded 80% success.

0.031480804 = product of:
  0.094442405 = sum of:
    0.094442405 = product of:
      0.18888481 = sum of:
        0.18888481 = weight(_text_:index in 2061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18888481 = score(doc=2061,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.8690314 = fieldWeight in 2061, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a common phrase index as an efficient index structure to support phrase queries in a very large text database. Our structure is an extension of previous index structures for phrases and achieves better query efficiency with modest extra storage cost. Further improvement in efficiency can be attained by implementing our index according to our observation of the dynamic nature of common word set. In experimental evaluation, a common phrase index using 255 common words has an improvement of about 11% and 62% in query time for the overall and large queries (queries of long phrases) respectively over an auxiliary nextword index. Moreover, it has only about 19% extra storage cost. Compared with an inverted index, our improvement is about 72% and 87% for the overall and large queries respectively. We also propose to implement a common phrase index with dynamic update feature. Our experiments show that more improvement in time efficiency can be achieved.

0.030036507 = product of:
  0.09010952 = sum of:
    0.09010952 = weight(_text_:sites in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09010952 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26002133 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049739745 = queryNorm
        0.34654665 = fieldWeight in 4457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4457)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Google's PageRank is an influential algorithm that uses a model of Web use that is dominated by its link structure in order to rank pages by their estimated value to the Web community. This paper reports on the outcome of applying the algorithm to the Web sites of three national university systems in order to test whether it is capable of identifying the most important Web pages. The results are also compared with simple inlink counts. It was discovered that the highest inlinked pages do not always have the highest PageRank, indicating that the two metrics are genuinely different, even for the top pages. More significantly, however, internal links dominated external links for the high ranks in either method and superficial reasons accounted for high scores in both cases. It is concluded that PageRank is not useful for identifying the top pages in a site and that it must be combined with a powerful text matching techniques in order to get the quality of information retrieval results provided by Google.

0.030036507 = product of:
  0.09010952 = sum of:
    0.09010952 = weight(_text_:sites in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09010952 = score(doc=674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26002133 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049739745 = queryNorm
        0.34654665 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Introduces several new versions of PageRank (the link based Web page ranking algorithm), based on an information science perspective on the concept of the Web document. Although the Web page is the typical indivisible unit of information in search engine results and most Web information retrieval algorithms, other research has suggested that aggregating pages based on directories and domains gives promising alternatives, particularly when Web links are the object of study. The new algorithms introduced based on these alternatives were used to rank four sets of Web pages. The ranking results were compared with human subjects' rankings. The results of the tests were somewhat inconclusive: the new approach worked well for the set that includes pages from different Web sites; however, it does not work well in ranking pages that are from the same site. It seems that the new algorithms may be effective for some tasks but not for others, especially when only low numbers of links are involved or the pages to be ranked are from the same site or directory.

0.023136217 = product of:
  0.06940865 = sum of:
    0.06940865 = product of:
      0.1388173 = sum of:
        0.1388173 = weight(_text_:index in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1388173 = score(doc=5586,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.63867813 = fieldWeight in 5586, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the practical limitations in the content and software of the databases that are used to calculate the h-index for assessing the publishing productivity and impact of researchers. To celebrate F. W. Lancaster's biological age of seventy-five, and "scientific age" of forty-five, this paper discusses the related features of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS), and demonstrates in the latter how a much more realistic and fair h-index can be computed for F. W. Lancaster than the one produced automatically. Browsing and searching the cited reference index of the 1945-2007 edition of WoS, which in my estimate has over a hundred million "orphan references" that have no counterpart master records to be attached to, and "stray references" that cite papers which do have master records but cannot be identified by the matching algorithm because of errors of omission and commission in the references of the citing works, can bring up hundreds of additional cited references given to works of an accomplished author but are ignored in the automatic process of calculating the h-index. The partially manual process doubled the h-index value for F. W. Lancaster from 13 to 26, which is a much more realistic value for an information scientist and professor of his stature.

Object

h-index

0.01955367 = product of:
  0.05866101 = sum of:
    0.05866101 = product of:
      0.11732202 = sum of:
        0.11732202 = weight(_text_:index in 3672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11732202 = score(doc=3672,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.5397815 = fieldWeight in 3672, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Stemming is one of the most important factors that affect the performance of information retrieval systems. This article investigates how to improve the performance of an Arabic information retrieval system by imposing the retrieval method over individual words of a query depending on the importance of the WORD, the STEM, or the ROOT of the query terms in the database. This method, called Mxed Stemming, computes term importance using a weighting scheme that use the Term Frequency (TF) and the Inverse Document Frequency (IDF), called TFxIDF. An extended version of the Arabic IRS system is designed, implemented, and evaluated to reduce the number of irrelevant documents retrieved. The results of the experiment suggest that the proposed method outperforms the Word index method using the TFxIDF weighting scheme. It also outperforms the Stem index method using the Binary weighting scheme but does not outperform the Stem index method using the TFxIDF weighting scheme, and again it outperforms the Root index method using the Binary weighting scheme but does not outperform the Root index method using the TFxIDF weighting scheme

0.018175451 = product of:
  0.05452635 = sum of:
    0.05452635 = product of:
      0.1090527 = sum of:
        0.1090527 = weight(_text_:index in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1090527 = score(doc=2648,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An inverted index stores, for each term that appears in a collection of documents, a list of document numbers containing that term. Such an index is indispensible when Boolean or informal ranked queries are to be answered. Construction of the index ist, however, a non trivial task. Simple methods using in.memory data structures cannot be used for large collections because they require too much random access storage, and traditional disc based methods require large amounts of temporary file space. Describes a new indexing algorithm designed to create large compressed inverted indexes in situ. It makes use of simple compression codes for the positive integers and an in place external multi way merge sort. The new techniques has been used to invert a 2-gigabyte text collection in under 4 hours, using less than 40 megabytes of temporary disc space, and less than 20 megabytes of main memory

0.017970797 = product of:
  0.05391239 = sum of:
    0.05391239 = product of:
      0.10782478 = sum of:
        0.10782478 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10782478 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1741801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476

0.017489335 = product of:
  0.052468 = sum of:
    0.052468 = product of:
      0.104936 = sum of:
        0.104936 = weight(_text_:index in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.104936 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.017313559 = product of:
  0.051940672 = sum of:
    0.051940672 = product of:
      0.103881344 = sum of:
        0.103881344 = weight(_text_:index in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103881344 = score(doc=2418,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.4779429 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Results from research in information retrieval have suggested that significant improvements in retrieval effectiveness can be obtained by combining results from multiple index representioms, query formulations, and search strategies. The inference net model of retrieval, which was designed from this point of view, treats information retrieval as an evidental reasoning process where multiple sources of evidence about document and query content are combined to estimate relevance probabilities. Uses a system based on this model to study the retrieval effectiveness benefits of combining these types of document and query information that are found in typical commercial databases and information services. The results indicate that substantial real benefits are possible

0.015724447 = product of:
  0.04717334 = sum of:
    0.04717334 = product of:
      0.09434668 = sum of:
        0.09434668 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09434668 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1741801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:32:22

0.015724447 = product of:
  0.04717334 = sum of:
    0.04717334 = product of:
      0.09434668 = sum of:
        0.09434668 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09434668 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1741801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.01514621 = product of:
  0.04543863 = sum of:
    0.04543863 = product of:
      0.09087726 = sum of:
        0.09087726 = weight(_text_:index in 1928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09087726 = score(doc=1928,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.418113 = fieldWeight in 1928, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on a novel technique for literature indexing and searching in a mechanized library system. The notion of relevance is taken as the key concept in the theory of information retrieval and a comparative concept of relevance is explicated in terms of the theory of probability. The resulting technique called 'Probabilistic indexing' allows a computing machine, given a request for information, to make a statistical inference and derive a number (called the 'relevance number') for each document, which is a measure of the probability that the document will satisfy the given request. The result of a search is an ordered list of those documents which satisfy the request ranked according to their probable relevance. The paper goes on to show that whereas in a conventional library system the cross-referencing ('see' and 'see also') is based soley on the 'semantic closeness' between index terms, statistical measures of closeness between index terms can be defined and computed. Thus, given an arbitrary request consisting of one (or many) index term(s), a machine can eleborate on it to increase the probability of selecting relevant documents that would not otherwise have been selected. Finally, the paper suggest an interpretation of the whole library problem as one where the request is considered as a clue on the basis of which the library system makes a concatenated statistical inference in order to provide as an output an ordered list of those documents which most probably satisfy the information needs of the user

0.014840192 = product of:
  0.044520576 = sum of:
    0.044520576 = product of:
      0.08904115 = sum of:
        0.08904115 = weight(_text_:index in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08904115 = score(doc=6112,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Enormous Web search engine databases combined with short search queries result in large result sets that are often difficult to access. Result ranking works fairly well, but users need help when it fails. For these situations, we propose a filtering interface that is inspired by keyword-in-context (KWIC) indices. The user interface lists the most frequent keyword contexts (fKWIC). When a context is selected, the corresponding results are displayed in the result list, allowing users to concentrate on the specific context. We compared the keyword context index user interface to the rank order result listing in an experiment with 36 participants. The results show that the proposed user interface was 29% faster in finding relevant results, and the precision of the selected results was 19% higher. In addition, participants showed positive attitudes toward the system.

0.014840192 = product of:
  0.044520576 = sum of:
    0.044520576 = product of:
      0.08904115 = sum of:
        0.08904115 = weight(_text_:index in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08904115 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.

0.014840192 = product of:
  0.044520576 = sum of:
    0.044520576 = product of:
      0.08904115 = sum of:
        0.08904115 = weight(_text_:index in 5744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08904115 = score(doc=5744,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 5744, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5744)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl.: https://publiscologne.th-koeln.de/frontdoor/index/index/searchtype/authorsearch/author/Julia+Walz/docId/1169/start/0/rows/10.

0.013991467 = product of:
  0.0419744 = sum of:
    0.0419744 = product of:
      0.0839488 = sum of:
        0.0839488 = weight(_text_:index in 2418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0839488 = score(doc=2418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 2418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews the basic techniques involving genetic algorithms and their application to 2 problems in information retrieval: the generation of equifrequent groups of index terms; and the identification of optimal query and term weights. The algorithm developed for the generation of equifrequent groupings proved to be effective in operation, achieving results comparable with those obtained using a good deterministic algorithm. The algorithm developed for the identification of optimal query and term weighting involves fitness function that is based on full relevance information

0.013991467 = product of:
  0.0419744 = sum of:
    0.0419744 = product of:
      0.0839488 = sum of:
        0.0839488 = weight(_text_:index in 3500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0839488 = score(doc=3500,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21735094 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = queryNorm
            0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 3500, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3500)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We survey new indices for text, with emphasis on PAT arrays (also called suffic arrays). A PAT array is an index based on a new model of text that does not use the concept of word and does not need to know the structure of text

0.013478097 = product of:
  0.04043429 = sum of:
    0.04043429 = product of:
      0.08086858 = sum of:
        0.08086858 = weight(_text_:22 in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08086858 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1741801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:44

0.013478097 = product of:
  0.04043429 = sum of:
    0.04043429 = product of:
      0.08086858 = sum of:
        0.08086858 = weight(_text_:22 in 2051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08086858 = score(doc=2051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1741801 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049739745 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

14. 6.2015 22:12:56