Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Mayr, P."
  1. Mayr, P.; Mutschke, P.; Petras, V.: Reducing semantic complexity in distributed digital libraries : Treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking (2008) 0.10 
    0.095766954 = product of:
  0.15961158 = sum of:
    0.023397226 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023397226 = score(doc=1909,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
    0.116957165 = weight(_text_:semantic in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116957165 = score(doc=1909,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.6077066 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
    0.019257195 = product of:
      0.03851439 = sum of:
        0.03851439 = weight(_text_:web in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851439 = score(doc=1909,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The general science portal "vascoda" merges structured, high-quality information collections from more than 40 providers on the basis of search engine technology (FAST) and a concept which treats semantic heterogeneity between different controlled vocabularies. First experiences with the portal show some weaknesses of this approach which come out in most metadata-driven Digital Libraries (DLs) or subject specific portals. The purpose of the paper is to propose models to reduce the semantic complexity in heterogeneous DLs. The aim is to introduce value-added services (treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking) that gain a certain quality in DLs if they are combined with heterogeneity components established in the project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity". Design/methodology/approach - Two methods, which are derived from scientometrics and network analysis, will be implemented with the objective to re-rank result sets by the following structural properties: the ranking of the results by core journals (so-called Bradfordizing) and ranking by centrality of authors in co-authorship networks. Findings - The methods, which will be implemented, focus on the query and on the result side of a search and are designed to positively influence each other. Conceptually, they will improve the search quality and guarantee that the most relevant documents in result sets will be ranked higher. Originality/value - The central impact of the paper focuses on the integration of three structural value-adding methods, which aim at reducing the semantic complexity represented in distributed DLs at several stages in the information retrieval process: query construction, search and ranking and re-ranking.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Digital libraries and the semantic web: context, applications and research".
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  2. Daquino, M.; Peroni, S.; Shotton, D.; Colavizza, G.; Ghavimi, B.; Lauscher, A.; Mayr, P.; Romanello, M.; Zumstein, P.: ¬The OpenCitations Data Model (2020) 0.05 
    0.048072767 = product of:
  0.12018191 = sum of:
    0.091879725 = weight(_text_:semantic in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091879725 = score(doc=38,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.47740483 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
    0.028302183 = product of:
      0.056604367 = sum of:
        0.056604367 = weight(_text_:web in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056604367 = score(doc=38,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with different nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data supplier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies. We also evaluate the effective reusability of OCDM according to ontology evaluation practices, mention existing users of OCDM, and discuss the use and impact of OCDM in the wider open science community.
    Content
    Erschienen in: The Semantic Web - ISWC 2020, 19th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, Greece, November 2-6, 2020, Proceedings, Part II. Vgl.: DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-62466-8_28.
  3. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.: Building a Terminology Network for Search : the KoMoHe project (2008) 0.04 
    0.04378892 = product of:
  0.109472305 = sum of:
    0.08752273 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08752273 = score(doc=2618,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.45476598 = fieldWeight in 2618, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2618)
    0.021949572 = product of:
      0.043899145 = sum of:
        0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043899145 = score(doc=2618,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2618, 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=2618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The paper reports about results on the GESIS-IZ project "Competence Center Modeling and Treatment of Semantic Heterogeneity" (KoMoHe). KoMoHe supervised a terminology mapping effort, in which 'cross-concordances' between major controlled vocabularies were organized, created and managed. In this paper we describe the establishment and implementation of crossconcordances for search in a digital library (DL).
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  4. Lauser, B.; Johannsen, G.; Caracciolo, C.; Hage, W.R. van; Keizer, J.; Mayr, P.: Comparing human and automatic thesaurus mapping approaches in the agricultural domain (2008) 0.04 
    0.04111839 = product of:
  0.10279597 = sum of:
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
    0.05859032 = sum of:
      0.027233787 = weight(_text_:web in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027233787 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031356532 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2627, 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=2627)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization systems (KOS), like thesauri and other controlled vocabularies, are used to provide subject access to information systems across the web. Due to the heterogeneity of these systems, mapping between vocabularies becomes crucial for retrieving relevant information. However, mapping thesauri is a laborious task, and thus big efforts are being made to automate the mapping process. This paper examines two mapping approaches involving the agricultural thesaurus AGROVOC, one machine-created and one human created. We are addressing the basic question "What are the pros and cons of human and automatic mapping and how can they complement each other?" By pointing out the difficulties in specific cases or groups of cases and grouping the sample into simple and difficult types of mappings, we show the limitations of current automatic methods and come up with some basic recommendations on what approach to use when.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  5. Mayr, P.; Zapilko, B.; Sure, Y.: ¬Ein Mehr-Thesauri-Szenario auf Basis von SKOS und Crosskonkordanzen (2010) 0.03 
    0.032539587 = product of:
  0.08134896 = sum of:
    0.05304678 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05304678 = score(doc=3392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.2756298 = fieldWeight in 3392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3392)
    0.028302183 = product of:
      0.056604367 = sum of:
        0.056604367 = weight(_text_:web in 3392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056604367 = score(doc=3392,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3392, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Im August 2009 wurde SKOS "Simple Knowledge Organization System" als neuer Standard für web-basierte kontrollierte Vokabulare durch das W3C veröffentlicht1. SKOS dient als Datenmodell, um kontrollierte Vokabulare über das Web anzubieten sowie technisch und semantisch interoperabel zu machen. Perspektivisch kann die heterogene Landschaft der Erschließungsvokabulare über SKOS vereinheitlicht und vor allem die Inhalte der klassischen Datenbanken (Bereich Fachinformation) für Anwendungen des Semantic Web, beispielsweise als Linked Open Data2 (LOD), zugänglich und stär-ker miteinander vernetzt werden. Vokabulare im SKOS-Format können dabei eine relevante Funktion einnehmen, indem sie als standardisiertes Brückenvokabular dienen und semantische Verlinkung zwischen erschlossenen, veröffentlichten Daten herstellen. Die folgende Fallstudie skizziert ein Szenario mit drei thematisch verwandten Thesauri, die ins SKOS-Format übertragen und inhaltlich über Crosskonkordanzen aus dem Projekt KoMoHe verbunden werden. Die Mapping Properties von SKOS bieten dazu standardisierte Relationen, die denen der Crosskonkordanzen entsprechen. Die beteiligten Thesauri der Fallstudie sind a) TheSoz (Thesaurus Sozialwissenschaften, GESIS), b) STW (Standard-Thesaurus Wirtschaft, ZBW) und c) IBLK-Thesaurus (SWP).
  6. Mayr, P.; Scharnhorst, A.: Scientometrics and information retrieval - weak-links revitalized (2015) 0.02 
    0.015882565 = product of:
  0.07941282 = sum of:
    0.07941282 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07941282 = score(doc=1688,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1688, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1688)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Editorial zu einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  7. Mayr, P.; Schaer, P.; Mutschke, P.: ¬A science model driven retrieval prototype (2011) 0.01 
    0.013754703 = product of:
  0.068773516 = sum of:
    0.068773516 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068773516 = score(doc=649,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This paper is about a better understanding of the structure and dynamics of science and the usage of these insights for compensating the typical problems that arises in metadata-driven Digital Libraries. Three science model driven retrieval services are presented: co-word analysis based query expansion, re-ranking via Bradfordizing and author centrality. The services are evaluated with relevance assessments from which two important implications emerge: (1) precision values of the retrieval services are the same or better than the tf-idf retrieval baseline and (2) each service retrieved a disjoint set of documents. The different services each favor quite other - but still relevant - documents than pure term-frequency based rankings. The proposed models and derived retrieval services therefore open up new viewpoints on the scientific knowledge space and provide an alternative framework to structure scholarly information systems.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  8. Mayr, P.: Google Scholar als akademische Suchmaschine (2009) 0.01 
    0.013649414 = product of:
  0.034123536 = sum of:
    0.01871778 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01871778 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
    0.0154057555 = product of:
      0.030811511 = sum of:
        0.030811511 = weight(_text_:web in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030811511 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Neben den klassischen Informationsanbietern Bibliothek, Fachinformation und den Verlagen sind Internetsuchmaschinen inzwischen fester Bestandteil bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Information. Scirus (Elsevier, 2004) und Google Scholar sind zwei Beispiele für Suchdienste kommerzieller Suchmaschinen-Unternehmen, die eine Einschränkung auf den wissenschaftlichen Dokumentenraum anstreben und nennenswerte Dokumentzahlen in allen Disziplinen generieren. Der Vergleich der Treffermengen für beliebige Suchthemen zeigt, dass die Wahl des Suchsystems, des Dokumentenpools und der Dokumenttypen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Relevanz und damit letztlich auch die Akzeptanz des Suchergebnisses hat. Tabelle 1 verdeutlicht die Mengenunterschiede am Beispiel der Trefferergebnisse für die Suchbegriffe "search engines" bzw. "Suchmaschinen" in der allgemeinen Internetsuchmaschine Google, der wissenschaftlichen Suchmaschine Google Scholar (GS) und der größten fachübergreifenden bibliographischen Literaturdatenbank Web of Science (WoS). Der Anteil der Dokumente, die in diesem Fall eindeutig der Wissenschaft zuzuordnen sind (siehe GS und insbesondere WoS in Tabelle 1), liegt gegenüber der allgemeinen Websuche lediglich im Promille-Bereich. Dieses Beispiel veranschaulicht, dass es ausgesprochen problematisch sein kann, fachwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen ausschließlich mit Internetsuchmaschinen zu recherchieren. Der Anteil der fachwissenschaftlich relevanten Dokumente in diesem Trefferpool ist i. d. R. sehr gering. Damit sinkt die Wahrscheinlichkeit, wissenschaftlich relevantes (z. B. einen Zeitschriftenaufsatz) auf den ersten Trefferseiten zu finden, deutlich ab.
    Die drei oben genannten Suchsysteme (Google, GS und WoS) unterscheiden sich in mehrerlei Hinsicht fundamental und eignen sich daher gut, um in die Grundthematik dieses Artikels einzuleiten. Die obigen Suchsysteme erschließen zunächst unterschiedliche Suchräume, und dies auf sehr spezifische Weise. Während Google frei zugängliche und über Hyperlink adressierbare Dokumente im Internet erfasst, gehen die beiden akademischen Suchsysteme deutlich selektiver bei der Inhaltserschließung vor. Google Scholar erfasst neben frei zugänglichen elektronischen Publikationstypen im Internet hauptsächlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente, die direkt von den akademischen Verlagen bezogen werden. Das WoS, das auf den unterschiedlichen bibliographischen Datenbanken und Zitationsindizes des ehemaligen "Institute for Scientific Information" (ISI) basiert, selektiert gegenüber den rein automatischen brute-force-Ansätzen der Internetsuchmaschine über einen qualitativen Ansatz. In den Datenbanken des WoS werden ausschließlich internationale Fachzeitschriften erfasst, die ein kontrolliertes Peer-Review durchlaufen. Insgesamt werden ca. 12.000 Zeitschriften ausgewertet und über die Datenbank verfügbar gemacht. Wie bereits erwähnt, spielt neben der Abgrenzung der Suchräume und Dokumenttypen die Zugänglichkeit und Relevanz der Dokumente eine entscheidende Bedeutung für den Benutzer. Die neueren technologischen Entwicklungen des Web Information Retrieval (IR), wie sie Google oder GS implementieren, werten insbesondere frei zugängliche Dokumente mit ihrer gesamten Text- und Linkinformation automatisch aus. Diese Verfahren sind vor allem deshalb erfolgreich, weil sie Ergebnislisten nach Relevanz gerankt darstellen, einfach und schnell zu recherchieren sind und direkt auf die Volltexte verweisen. Die qualitativen Verfahren der traditionellen Informationsanbieter (z. B. WoS) hingegen zeigen genau bei diesen Punkten (Ranking, Einfachheit und Volltextzugriff) Schwächen, überzeugen aber vor allem durch ihre Stringenz, in diesem Fall die selektive Aufnahme von qualitätsgeprüften Dokumenten in das System und die inhaltliche Erschließung der Dokumente (siehe dazu Mayr und Petras, 2008).
  9. Mutschke, P.; Mayr, P.: Science models for search : a study on combining scholarly information retrieval and scientometrics (2015) 0.01 
    0.013235469 = product of:
  0.066177346 = sum of:
    0.066177346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066177346 = score(doc=1695,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 1695, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1695)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"
  10. Mayr, P.; Mutschke, P.; Petras, V.; Schaer, P.; Sure, Y.: Applying science models for search (2010) 0.01 
    0.012968059 = product of:
  0.064840294 = sum of:
    0.064840294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064840294 = score(doc=4663,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 4663, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4663)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The paper proposes three different kinds of science models as value-added services that are integrated in the retrieval process to enhance retrieval quailty. The paper discusses the approaches Search Term Recommendation, Bradfordizing and Author Centrality on a general level and addresses implementation issues of the models within a real-life retrieval environment.
  11. Mayr, P.: Information Retrieval-Mehrwertdienste für Digitale Bibliotheken: : Crosskonkordanzen und Bradfordizing (2010) 0.01 
    0.009726045 = product of:
  0.048630223 = sum of:
    0.048630223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048630223 = score(doc=4910,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    RSWK
    Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation
    Subject
    Dokumentationssprache / Heterogenität / Information Retrieval / Ranking / Evaluation
  12. Mayr, P.; Mutschke, P.; Schaer, P.; Sure, Y.: Mehrwertdienste für das Information Retrieval (2013) 0.01 
    0.009264829 = product of:
  0.04632414 = sum of:
    0.04632414 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04632414 = score(doc=935,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 935, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=935)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Ziel des Projekts ist die Entwicklung und Erprobung von metadatenbasierten Mehr-wertdiensten für Retrievalumgebungen mit mehreren Datenbanken: a) Search Term Recommender (STR) als Dienst zum automatischen Vorschlagen von Suchbegriffen aus kontrollierten Vokabularen, b) Bradfordizing als Dienst zum Re-Ranking von Ergebnismengen nach Kernzeitschriften und c) Autorenzentralität als Dienst zum Re-Ranking von. Ergebnismengen nach Zentralität der Autoren in Autorennetzwerken. Schwerpunkt des Projektes ist die prototypische mplementierung der drei Mehrwertdienste in einer integrierten Retrieval-Testumgebung und insbesondere deren quantitative und qualitative Evaluation hinsichtlich Verbesserung der Retrievalqualität bei Einsatz der Mehrwertdienste.
  13. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.01 
    0.00861208 = product of:
  0.043060396 = sum of:
    0.043060396 = product of:
      0.08612079 = sum of:
        0.08612079 = weight(_text_:web in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08612079 = score(doc=3752,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
    Content
    Bezug zu: Bergman, M.K.: The Deep Web: surfacing hidden value. In: Journal of Electronic Publishing. 7(2001) no.1, S.xxx-xxx. [Vgl. unter: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-01/bergman.html].
  14. Lewandowski, D.; Mayr, P.: Exploring the academic invisible Web (2006) 0.01 
    0.008170135 = product of:
  0.040850677 = sum of:
    0.040850677 = product of:
      0.08170135 = sum of:
        0.08170135 = weight(_text_:web in 2580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08170135 = score(doc=2580,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 2580, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  15. Mayr, P.; Tosques, F.: Webometrische Analysen mit Hilfe der Google Web APIs (2005) 0.01 
    0.006603842 = product of:
  0.03301921 = sum of:
    0.03301921 = product of:
      0.06603842 = sum of:
        0.06603842 = weight(_text_:web in 3189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06603842 = score(doc=3189,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 3189, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Der Report stellt die Möglichkeiten und Einschränkungen der Google Web APIs (Google API) dar. Die Implementierung der Google API anhand einzelner informationswissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen aus der Webometrie ergibt, dass die Google API mit Einschränkungen für internetbezogene Untersuchungen eingesetzt werden können. Vergleiche der Trefferergebnisse über die beiden Google-Schnittstellen Google API und die Standard Weboberfläche Google.com (Google Web) zeigen Unterschiede bezüglich der Reichweite, der Zusammensetzung und Verfügbarkeit. Die Untersuchung basiert auf einfachen und erweiterten Suchanfragen in den Sprachen Deutsch und Englisch. Die analysierten Treffermengen der Google API bestätigen tendenziell frühere Internet-Studien.
  16. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.: Crosskonkordanzen : Terminologie Mapping und deren Effektivität für das Information Retrieval 0.01 
    0.0065512233 = product of:
  0.032756116 = sum of:
    0.032756116 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032756116 = score(doc=1996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1996)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  17. Mayr, P.: Thesauri, Klassifikationen & Co - die Renaissance der kontrollierten Vokabulare? (2006) 0.01 
    0.0056153345 = product of:
  0.028076671 = sum of:
    0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 28) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028076671 = score(doc=28,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 28, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=28)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit aktuellen Entwicklungen im Bereich des Terminologie Mapping zwischen kontrollierten Vokabularen. Die unterschiedlichen Typen und Ausprägungen von kontrollierten Vokabularen - Thesauri, Klassifikationen, Schlagwortnormdaten und kontrollierte Schlagwortlisten - dienen hauptsächlich der inhaltlichen Erschließung von Literatur und anderen Dokumenttypen und werden u. a. in Datenbanksystemen bei der Deskriptorensuche und zum Browsing angeboten. Die Zusammenführung der heterogenen Indexierungssprachen bei der übergreifenden Datenbankrecherche (crossdatabase retrieval) führt jedoch zu Problemen bei der semantischen Integration der zugrunde liegenden Bestände. Der Beitrag stellt in diesem Kontext den Ansatz sowie die bisherigen Ergebnisse des Projekts" Modellbildung und Heterogenitätsbehandlung" vor. Im Anschluss wird auf Bradford's Law of Scattering (BLS) sowie abgeleitete Einsatzmöglichkeiten des BLS im Projekt Bezug genommen: 1) BLS zur Untersuchung der Auswirkungen der Heterogenitätsbehandlung, 2) BLS bzw. Bradfordizing als alternativer, informationswissenschaftlich begründeter Zugangsmechanismus für Zeitschriftenartikel.
  18. Mayr, P.; Petras, V.: Cross-concordances : terminology mapping and its effectiveness for information retrieval (2008) 0.01 
    0.0056153345 = product of:
  0.028076671 = sum of:
    0.028076671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028076671 = score(doc=2323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2323)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  19. Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016) 0.00 
    0.00471703 = product of:
  0.02358515 = sum of:
    0.02358515 = product of:
      0.0471703 = sum of:
        0.0471703 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0471703 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.
  20. Daniel, F.; Maier, C.; Mayr, P.; Wirtz, H.-C.: ¬Die Kunden dort bedienen, wo sie sind : DigiAuskunft besteht Bewährungsprobe / Seit Anfang 2006 in Betrieb (2006) 0.00 
    0.0043899147 = product of:
  0.021949572 = sum of:
    0.021949572 = product of:
      0.043899145 = sum of:
        0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 5991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043899145 = score(doc=5991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5991, 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=5991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    8. 7.2006 21:06:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 14
  • d 11

Types

Themes

Classifications