Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.018132308 = product of:
  0.08159539 = sum of:
    0.008467626 = weight(_text_:of in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008467626 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
    0.07312777 = weight(_text_:systems in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07312777 = score(doc=2556,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.6073894 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems / Evaluation
Interactive computer systems / Evaluation

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems / Evaluation
Interactive computer systems / Evaluation

0.016036931 = product of:
  0.07216619 = sum of:
    0.026461331 = weight(_text_:of in 4549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026461331 = score(doc=4549,freq=50.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.43193102 = fieldWeight in 4549, product of:
          7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
            50.0 = termFreq=50.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4549)
    0.045704857 = weight(_text_:systems in 4549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045704857 = score(doc=4549,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 4549, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4549)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper presents a set of basic components which constitutes the experimental setting intended for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval (IIR) systems, the aim of which is to facilitate evaluation of IIR systems in a way which is as close as possible to realistic IR processes. The experimental settings consists of 3 components: (1) the involvement of potential users as test persons; (2) the application of dynamic and individual information needs; and (3) the use of multidimensionsal and dynamic relevance judgements. Hidden under the information need component is the essential central sub-component, the simulated work task situation, the tool that triggers the (simulated) dynamic information need. This paper also reports on the empirical findings of the meta-evaluation of the application of this sub-component, the purpose of which is to discover whether the application of simulated work task situations to future evaluation of IIR systems can be recommended. Investigations are carried out to dertermine whether any search behavioural differences exist between test persons' treatment of their own real information needs versus simulated information needs. The hypothesis is that if no difference exist one can correctly substitute real information needs with simulated information needs through the application of simulated work task situations. The empirical results of the meta-evaluation provide positive evidence for the application of simulated work task situations to the evaluation of IIR systems. The results also indicate that tailoring work task situations to the group of test persons is important in motivating them. Furthermore, the results of the evaluation show that different versions of semantic openness of the simulated situations make no difference to the test persons' search treatment

Source

Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.1, S.71-90

0.015879741 = product of:
  0.07145883 = sum of:
    0.022403233 = weight(_text_:of in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022403233 = score(doc=2019,freq=56.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
          7.483315 = tf(freq=56.0), with freq of:
            56.0 = termFreq=56.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
    0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 2019) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0490556 = score(doc=2019,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 2019, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2019)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Evaluation has always been a strong element of Information Retrieval (IR) research, much of our focus being on how we evaluate IR algorithms. As a research field we have benefited greatly from initiatives such as Cranfield, TREC, CLEF and INEX that have added to our knowledge of how to create test collections, the reliability of system-based evaluation criteria and our understanding of how to interpret the results of an algorithmic evaluation. In contrast, evaluations whose main focus is the user experience of searching have not yet reached the same level of maturity. Such evaluations are complex to create and assess due to the increased number of variables to incorporate within the study, the lack of standard tools available (for example, test collections) and the difficulty of selecting appropriate evaluation criteria for study. In spite of the complicated nature of user-centred evaluations, this form of evaluation is necessary to understand the effectiveness of individual IR systems and user search interactions. The growing incorporation of users into the evaluation process reflects the changing nature of IR within society; for example, more and more people have access to IR systems through Internet search engines but have little training or guidance in how to use these systems effectively. Similarly, new types of search system and new interactive IR facilities are becoming available to wide groups of end-users. In this special topic issue we present papers that tackle the methodological issues of evaluating interactive search systems. Methodologies can be presented at different levels; the papers by Blandford et al. and Petrelli present whole methodological approaches for evaluating interactive systems whereas those by Göker and Myrhaug and López Ostenero et al., consider what makes an appropriate evaluation methodological approach for specific retrieval situations. Any methodology must consider the nature of the methodological components, the instruments and processes by which we evaluate our systems. A number of papers have examined these issues in detail: Käki and Aula focus on specific methodological issues for the evaluation of Web search interfaces, Lopatovska and Mokros present alternate measures of retrieval success, Tenopir et al. examine the affective and cognitive verbalisations that occur within user studies and Kelly et al. analyse questionnaires, one of the basic tools for evaluations. The range of topics in this special issue as a whole nicely illustrates the variety and complexity by which user-centred evaluation of IR systems is undertaken.

Footnote

Einleitung eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems

0.013723786 = product of:
  0.061757036 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=922,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
    0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0490556 = score(doc=922,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

0.008161413 = product of:
  0.036726356 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=156,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The present study investigates the ability of a bibliometric based semi-automatic method to select candidate thesaurus terms from citation contexts. The method consists of document co-citation analysis, citation context analysis, and noun phrase parsing. The investigation is carried out within the specialty area of periodontology. The results clearly demonstrate that the method is able to select important candidate thesaurus terms within the chosen specialty area.

Date

8. 3.2007 19:55:22

Source

Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven

0.0029094096 = product of:
  0.026184686 = sum of:
    0.026184686 = weight(_text_:of in 1798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026184686 = score(doc=1798,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4274153 = fieldWeight in 1798, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1798)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article introduces the concept of relevance as viewed and applied in the context of IR evaluation, by presenting an overview of the multidimensional and dynamic nature of the concept. The literature an relevance reveals how the relevance concept, especially in regard to the multidimensionality of relevance, is many faceted, and does not just refer to the various relevance criteria users may apply in the process of judging relevance of retrieved information objects. From our point of view, the multidimensionality of relevance explains why some will argue that no consensus has been reached an the relevance concept. Thus, the objective of this article is to present an overview of the many different views and ways by which the concept of relevance is used-leading to a consistent and compatible understanding of the concept. In addition, special attention is paid to the type of situational relevance. Many researchers perceive situational relevance as the most realistic type of user relevance, and therefore situational relevance is discussed with reference to its potential dynamic nature, and as a requirement for interactive information retrieval (IIR) evaluation.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.10, S.913-925

0.0024947983 = product of:
  0.022453185 = sum of:
    0.022453185 = weight(_text_:of in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022453185 = score(doc=3091,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Because of the increasing presence of scientific publications an the Web, combined with the existing difficulties in easily verifying and retrieving these publications, research an techniques and methods for retrieval of scientific Web publications is called for. In this article, we report an the initial steps taken toward the construction of a test collection of scientific Web publications within the subject domain of plant biology. The steps reported are those of data gathering and data analysis aiming at identifying characteristics of scientific Web publications. The data used in this article were generated based an specifically selected domain topics that are searched for in three publicly accessible search engines (Google, AlITheWeb, and AItaVista). A sample of the retrieved hits was analyzed with regard to how various publication attributes correlated with the scientific quality of the content and whether this information could be employed to harvest, filter, and rank Web publications. The attributes analyzed were inlinks, outlinks, bibliographic references, file format, language, search engine overlap, structural position (according to site structure), and the occurrence of various types of metadata. As could be expected, the ranked output differs between the three search engines. Apparently, this is caused by differences in ranking algorithms rather than the databases themselves. In fact, because scientific Web content in this subject domain receives few inlinks, both AItaVista and AlITheWeb retrieved a higher degree of accessible scientific content than Google. Because of the search engine cutoffs of accessible URLs, the feasibility of using search engine output for Web content analysis is also discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1239-1249

0.0021169065 = product of:
  0.019052157 = sum of:
    0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 4423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019052157 = score(doc=4423,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 4423, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4423)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The paper introduces bibliometrics to the research area of knowledge organization - more precisely in relation to construction and maintenance of thesauri. As such, the paper reviews related work that has been of inspiration for the assembly of a semi-automatic, bibliometric-based, approach for construction and maintenance. Similarly, the paper discusses the methodical considerations behind the approach. Eventually, the semi-automatic approach is used to verify the applicability of bibliometric methods as a supplement to construction and maintenance of thesauri. In the context of knowledge organization, the paper outlines two fundamental approaches to knowledge organization, that is, the manual intellectual approach and the automatic algorithmic approach. Bibliometric methods belong to the automatic algorithmic approach, though bibliometrics do have special characteristics that are substantially different from other methods within this approach.

Source

Journal of documentation. 60(2004) no.5, S.524-549

0.0018816947 = product of:
  0.016935252 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=584,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means of evaluation in informetric studies such as cocitation analysis. In this first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, are introduced and discussed. The motivation is spurred by the recent debate on choice of proximity measures and their potential influence upon clustering and ordination results. The two important issues discussed here are matrix generation and the composition of proximity measures. The approach to matrix generation is demonstrated for the same data set, i.e., how data is represented and transformed in a matrix, evidently determines the behavior of proximity measures. Two different matrix generation approaches, in all probability, will lead to different proximity rankings of objects, which further lead to different ordination and clustering results for the same set of objects. Further, a resemblance in the composition of formulas indicates whether two proximity measures may produce similar ordination and clustering results. However, as shown in the case of the angular correlation and cosine measures, a small deviation in otherwise similar formulas can lead to different rankings depending on the contour of the data matrix transformed. Eventually, the behavior of proximity measures, that is whether they produce similar rankings of objects, is more or less data-specific. Consequently, the authors recommend the use of empirical matrix comparison techniques for individual studies to investigate the degree of resemblance between proximity measures or their ordination results. In part two of the article, the authors introduce and demonstrate two related statistical matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1586-1595

0.0016961367 = product of:
  0.01526523 = sum of:
    0.01526523 = weight(_text_:of in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01526523 = score(doc=582,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The present two-part article introduces matrix comparison as a formal means for evaluation purposes in informetric studies such as cocitation analysis. In the first part, the motivation behind introducing matrix comparison to informetric studies, as well as two important issues influencing such comparisons, matrix generation, and the composition of proximity measures, are introduced and discussed. In this second part, the authors introduce and thoroughly demonstrate two related matrix comparison techniques the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis, respectively. These techniques can compare and evaluate the degree of monotonicity between different proximity measures or their ordination results. In common with these techniques is the application of permutation procedures to test hypotheses about matrix resemblances. The choice of technique is related to the validation at hand. In the case of the Mantel test, the degree of resemblance between two measures forecast their potentially different affect upon ordination and clustering results. In principle, two proximity measures with a very strong resemblance most likely produce identical results, thus, choice of measure between the two becomes less important. Alternatively, or as a supplement, Procrustes analysis compares the actual ordination results without investigating the underlying proximity measures, by matching two configurations of the same objects in a multidimensional space. An advantage of the Procrustes analysis though, is the graphical solution provided by the superimposition plot and the resulting decomposition of variance components. Accordingly, the Procrustes analysis provides not only a measure of general fit between configurations, but also values for individual objects enabling more elaborate validations. As such, the Mantel test and Procrustes analysis can be used as statistical validation tools in informetric studies and thus help choosing suitable proximity measures.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1596-1609