Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014277548 = product of:
  0.085665286 = sum of:
    0.085665286 = weight(_text_:ranking in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085665286 = score(doc=3881,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.42258036 = fieldWeight in 3881, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3881)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.011422038 = product of:
  0.06853223 = sum of:
    0.06853223 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06853223 = score(doc=5208,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.33806428 = fieldWeight in 5208, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5208)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=379)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Eye movement data can provide an in-depth view of human reasoning and the decision-making process, and modern information retrieval (IR) research can benefit from the analysis of this type of data. The aim of this research was to examine the relationship between relevance criteria use and visual behavior in the context of predictive relevance judgments. To address this objective, a multimethod research design was employed that involved observation of participants' eye movements, talk-aloud protocols, and postsearch interviews. Specifically, the results reported in this article came from the analysis of 281 predictive relevance judgments made by 24 participants using the Google search engine. We present a novel stepwise methodological framework for the analysis of relevance judgments and eye movements on the Web and show new patterns of relevance criteria use during predictive relevance judgment. For example, the findings showed an effect of ranking order and surrogate components (Title, Summary, and URL) on the use of relevance criteria. Also, differences were observed in the cognitive effort spent between very relevant and not relevant judgments. We conclude with the implications of this study for IR research.

0.0019926056 = product of:
  0.011955633 = sum of:
    0.011955633 = product of:
      0.035866898 = sum of:
        0.035866898 = weight(_text_:29 in 2042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035866898 = score(doc=2042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2042, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2042)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 7.2008 12:28:27

0.0017079476 = product of:
  0.010247685 = sum of:
    0.010247685 = product of:
      0.030743055 = sum of:
        0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 4369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743055 = score(doc=4369,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4369, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4369)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 7.2018 9:47:05

0.0017079476 = product of:
  0.010247685 = sum of:
    0.010247685 = product of:
      0.030743055 = sum of:
        0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 4455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743055 = score(doc=4455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4455, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4455)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 9.2018 11:25:14

0.0014104862 = product of:
  0.008462917 = sum of:
    0.008462917 = product of:
      0.025388751 = sum of:
        0.025388751 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025388751 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 4.2023 19:27:56