Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12788323 = product of:
  0.19182482 = sum of:
    0.13168289 = weight(_text_:query in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13168289 = score(doc=1081,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.5741056 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
    0.060141932 = product of:
      0.120283864 = sum of:
        0.120283864 = weight(_text_:page in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120283864 = score(doc=1081,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.4363609 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aim of the work described in this paper is to evaluate the influencing effects of query-biased summaries in web searching. For this purpose, a summarisation system has been developed, and a summary tailored to the user's query is generated automatically for each document retrieved. The system aims to provide both a better means of assessing document relevance than titles or abstracts typical of many web search result lists. Through visiting each result page at retrieval-time, the system provides the user with an idea of the current page content and thus deals with the dynamic nature of the web. To examine the effectiveness of this approach, a task-oriented, comparative evaluation between four different web retrieval systems was performed; two that use query-biased summarisation, and two that use the standard ranked titles/abstracts approach. The results from the evaluation indicate that query-biased summarisation techniques appear to be more useful and effective in helping users gauge document relevance than the traditional ranked titles/abstracts approach. The same methodology was used to compare the effectiveness of two of the web's major search engines; AltaVista and Google.

0.08387356 = product of:
  0.12581034 = sum of:
    0.08328357 = weight(_text_:query in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08328357 = score(doc=3881,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.3630963 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
    0.04252677 = product of:
      0.08505354 = sum of:
        0.08505354 = weight(_text_:page in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08505354 = score(doc=3881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.30855376 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Web searchers typically fall to view search results beyond the first page nor fully examine those results presented to them. In this article we describe an approach that encourages a deeper examination of the contents of the document set retrieved in response to a searcher's query. The approach shifts the focus of perusal and interaction away from potentially uninformative document surrogates (such as titles, sentence fragments, and URLs) to actual document content, and uses this content to drive the information seeking process. Current search interfaces assume searchers examine results document-by-document. In contrast our approach extracts, ranks, and presents the contents of the top-ranked document set. We use query-relevant topranking sentences extracted from the top documents at retrieval time as fine-grained representations of topranked document content and, when combined in a ranked list, an overview of these documents. The interaction of the searcher provides implicit evidence that is used to reorder the sentences where appropriate. We evaluate our approach in three separate user studies, each applying these sentences in a different way. The findings of these studies show that top-ranking sentences can facilitate effective information access.

0.041549146 = product of:
  0.12464744 = sum of:
    0.12464744 = weight(_text_:query in 5208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12464744 = score(doc=5208,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.5434328 = fieldWeight in 5208, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5208)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ruthven, Lalmas, and van Rijsbergen use traditional term importance measures like inverse document frequency, noise, based upon in-document frequency, and term frequency supplemented by theme value which is calculated from differences of expected positions of words in a text from their actual positions, on the assumption that even distribution indicates term association with a main topic, and context, which is based on a query term's distance from the nearest other query term relative to the average expected distribution of all query terms in the document. They then define document characteristics like specificity, the sum of all idf values in a document over the total terms in the document, or document complexity, measured by the documents average idf value; and information to noise ratio, info-noise, tokens after stopping and stemming over tokens before these processes, measuring the ratio of useful and non-useful information in a document. Retrieval tests are then carried out using each characteristic, combinations of the characteristics, and relevance feedback to determine the correct combination of characteristics. A file ranks independently of query terms by both specificity and info-noise, but if presence of a query term is required unique rankings are generated. Tested on five standard collections the traditional characteristics out preformed the new characteristics, which did, however, out preform random retrieval. All possible combinations of characteristics were also tested both with and without a set of scaling weights applied. All characteristics can benefit by combination with another characteristic or set of characteristics and performance as a single characteristic is a good indicator of performance in combination. Larger combinations tended to be more effective than smaller ones and weighting increased precision measures of middle ranking combinations but decreased the ranking of poorer combinations. The best combinations vary for each collection, and in some collections with the addition of weighting. Finally, with all documents ranked by the all characteristics combination, they take the top 30 documents and calculate the characteristic scores for each term in both the relevant and the non-relevant sets. Then taking for each query term the characteristics whose average was higher for relevant than non-relevant documents the documents are re-ranked. The relevance feedback method of selecting characteristics can select a good set of characteristics for query terms.

0.019630127 = product of:
  0.05889038 = sum of:
    0.05889038 = weight(_text_:query in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05889038 = score(doc=5064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.25674784 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Advances in search technology have meant that search systems can now offer assistance to users beyond simply retrieving a set of documents. For example, search systems are now capable of inferring user interests by observing their interaction, offering suggestions about what terms could be used in a query, or reorganizing search results to make exploration of retrieved material more effective. When providing new search functionality, system designers must decide how the new functionality should be offered to users. One major choice is between (a) offering automatic features that require little human input, but give little human control; or (b) interactive features which allow human control over how the feature is used, but often give little guidance over how the feature should be best used. This article presents a study in which we empirically investigate the issue of control by presenting an experiment in which participants were asked to interact with three experimental systems that vary the degree of control they had in creating queries, indicating which results are relevant in making search decisions. We use our findings to discuss why and how the control users want over search decisions can vary depending on the nature of the decisions and the impact of those decisions on the user's search.

0.01701071 = product of:
  0.051032126 = sum of:
    0.051032126 = product of:
      0.10206425 = sum of:
        0.10206425 = weight(_text_:page in 5255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10206425 = score(doc=5255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27565226 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.37026453 = fieldWeight in 5255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5854197 = idf(docFreq=450, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the criteria used by online searchers when assessing the relevance of Web pages for information-seeking tasks. Twenty-four participants were given three tasks each, and they indicated the Features of Web pages that they used when deciding about the usefulness of the pages in relation to the tasks. These tasks were presented within the context of a simulated work-task situation. We investigated the relative utility of features identified by participants (Web page content, structure, and quality) and how the importance of these features is affected by the type of information-seeking task performed and the stage of the search. The results of this study provide a set of criteria used by searchers to decide about the utility of Web pages for different types of tasks. Such criteria can have implications for the design of systems that use or recommend Web pages.

0.0055721086 = product of:
  0.016716326 = sum of:
    0.016716326 = product of:
      0.03343265 = sum of:
        0.03343265 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03343265 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56