Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × 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.; 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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