Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Lewandowski, D."
  1. Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017) 0.03
    0.029886894 = product of:
      0.08966068 = sum of:
        0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08966068 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.
  2. Lewandowski, D.: Spezialsuche für wissenschaftliche Informationen (2004) 0.01
    0.0134057235 = product of:
      0.04021717 = sum of:
        0.04021717 = product of:
          0.08043434 = sum of:
            0.08043434 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08043434 = score(doc=3298,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  3. Lewandowski, D.: Alles nur noch Google? : Entwicklungen im Bereich der WWW-Suchmaschinen (2002) 0.01
    0.008975455 = product of:
      0.026926363 = sum of:
        0.026926363 = product of:
          0.053852726 = sum of:
            0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053852726 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    29. 9.2002 18:49:22
  4. Lewandowski, D.: Abfragesprachen und erweiterte Funktionen von WWW-Suchmaschinen (2004) 0.01
    0.008975455 = product of:
      0.026926363 = sum of:
        0.026926363 = product of:
          0.053852726 = sum of:
            0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 2314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053852726 = score(doc=2314,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2314, 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=2314)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    28.11.2004 13:11:22
  5. Lewandowski, D.: Query understanding (2011) 0.01
    0.008975455 = product of:
      0.026926363 = sum of:
        0.026926363 = product of:
          0.053852726 = sum of:
            0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.053852726 = score(doc=344,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 344, 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=344)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    18. 9.2018 18:22:18
  6. Lewandowski, D.: ¬Die Macht der Suchmaschinen und ihr Einfluss auf unsere Entscheidungen (2014) 0.01
    0.0067315903 = product of:
      0.02019477 = sum of:
        0.02019477 = product of:
          0.04038954 = sum of:
            0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04038954 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1491, 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=1491)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 9.2014 18:54:11
  7. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.01
    0.0067028617 = product of:
      0.020108584 = sum of:
        0.020108584 = product of:
          0.04021717 = sum of:
            0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04021717 = score(doc=3752,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the Deep Web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the Academic Invisible Web (AIW). We define the Academic Invisible Web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the Invisible Web is central to scien-tific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estima-tion based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the Invisible Web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the Invisible Web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the Academic Invisible Web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the Academic In-visible Web.
  8. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.01
    0.0067028617 = product of:
      0.020108584 = sum of:
        0.020108584 = product of:
          0.04021717 = sum of:
            0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04021717 = score(doc=2580,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose: To provide a critical review of Bergman's 2001 study on the deep web. In addition, we bring a new concept into the discussion, the academic invisible web (AIW). We define the academic invisible web as consisting of all databases and collections relevant to academia but not searchable by the general-purpose internet search engines. Indexing this part of the invisible web is central to scientific search engines. We provide an overview of approaches followed thus far. Design/methodology/approach: Discussion of measures and calculations, estimation based on informetric laws. Literature review on approaches for uncovering information from the invisible web. Findings: Bergman's size estimate of the invisible web is highly questionable. We demonstrate some major errors in the conceptual design of the Bergman paper. A new (raw) size estimate is given. Research limitations/implications: The precision of our estimate is limited due to a small sample size and lack of reliable data. Practical implications: We can show that no single library alone will be able to index the academic invisible web. We suggest collaboration to accomplish this task. Originality/value: Provides library managers and those interested in developing academic search engines with data on the size and attributes of the academic invisible web.
  9. Lewandowski, D.; Spree, U.: Ranking of Wikipedia articles in search engines revisited : fair ranking for reasonable quality? (2011) 0.01
    0.005609659 = product of:
      0.016828977 = sum of:
        0.016828977 = product of:
          0.033657953 = sum of:
            0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033657953 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    30. 9.2012 19:27:22
  10. Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: What does Google recommend when you want to compare insurance offerings? (2019) 0.01
    0.005609659 = product of:
      0.016828977 = sum of:
        0.016828977 = product of:
          0.033657953 = sum of:
            0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 5288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033657953 = score(doc=5288,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5288, 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=5288)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  11. Lewandowski, D.: Web Information Retrieval : Technologien zur Informationssuche im Internet (2005) 0.00
    0.002681145 = product of:
      0.0080434345 = sum of:
        0.0080434345 = product of:
          0.016086869 = sum of:
            0.016086869 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016086869 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.08458473 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Content
    7 Informationsstatistische und informationslinguistische Verfahren 7.1 Textstatistische Verfahren 7.2 Nutzungsstatistische Verfahren 7.3 Informationslinguistische Verfahren 8 Linktopologische Rankingverfahren 8.1 Grundlagen linktopologischer Rankingverfahren: Science Citation Indexing 8.2 PageRank 8.3 Kleinbergs HITS 8.4 Hilltop 8.5 Evaluierung linktopologischer Verfahren 8.6 Problembereiche linktopologischer Rankingverfahren 8.7 Fazit linktopologische Verfahren 9 Retrievaltests 9.1 Aufbau und Nutzen von Retrievaltests 9.2 Aufbau und Ergebnisse ausgewählter Retrievaltests 9.3 Kritik an Retrievaltests 10 Verfahren der intuitiven Benutzerführung 10.1 Relevance Feedback 10.2 Vorschläge zur Erweiterung und Einschränkung der Suchanfrage 10.3 Klassifikation und Thesaurus 10.4 Clusterbildung 11 Aktualität 11.1 Bedeutung der Beschränkung nach der Aktualität der Dokumente 11.2 Funktionsfähigkeit der Datumsbeschränkung in Suchmaschinen 11.3 Möglichkeiten der Ermittlung von Datumsangaben in Web-Dokumenten 11.4 Aktualitätsfaktoren im Ranking 11.5 Spezialisierte Suchmaschinen für Nachrichten 11.6 Auswahl der gewünschten Aktualität durch den Nutzer 12 Qualität 12.1 Bedeutung der Beschränkung nach der Qualität der Dokumente 12.2 Qualitätsbeschränkungen bei der Recherche in Datenbank-Hosts 12.3 Identifizierung von Top-Quellen im WWW 12.4 Manuelle Einbindung von Top-Quellen 12.5 Automatisierte Einbindung von Invisible-Web-Quellen 12.6 Einbindung von Web-Verzeichnissen in Suchmaschinen 13 Verbesserung der Dokumentrepräsentation 13.1 Beschränkung auf den Inhaltsteil der Dokumente 13.2 Erweiterungen der Dokumentrepräsentation 13.3 Ersatz für die Nicht-Verwendbarkeit generischer Top-Level-Domains 13.4 Aufbereitung der Suchergebnisse in den Trefferlisten 14 Fazit und Ausblick 15 Literaturverzeichnis

Languages

Types