Search (100 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.01 
    0.0127447145 = product of:
  0.0446065 = sum of:
    0.010253297 = product of:
      0.051266484 = sum of:
        0.051266484 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051266484 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0343532 = product of:
      0.0687064 = sum of:
        0.0687064 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0687064 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
  2. Petrelli, D.: On the role of user-centred evaluation in the advancement of interactive information retrieval (2008) 0.01 
    0.012560169 = product of:
  0.04396059 = sum of:
    0.03169159 = product of:
      0.07922897 = sum of:
        0.04484883 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04484883 = score(doc=2026,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
        0.034380134 = weight(_text_:system in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034380134 = score(doc=2026,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, 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=2026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the role of user-centred evaluations as an essential method for researching interactive information retrieval. It draws mainly on the work carried out during the Clarity Project where different user-centred evaluations were run during the lifecycle of a cross-language information retrieval system. The iterative testing was not only instrumental to the development of a usable system, but it enhanced our knowledge of the potential, impact, and actual use of cross-language information retrieval technology. Indeed the role of the user evaluation was dual: by testing a specific prototype it was possible to gain a micro-view and assess the effectiveness of each component of the complex system; by cumulating the result of all the evaluations (in total 43 people were involved) it was possible to build a macro-view of how cross-language retrieval would impact on users and their tasks. By showing the richness of results that can be acquired, this paper aims at stimulating researchers into considering user-centred evaluations as a flexible, adaptable and comprehensive technique for investigating non-traditional information access systems.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38
  3. King, D.W.: Blazing new trails : in celebration of an audacious career (2000) 0.01 
    0.010898593 = product of:
  0.038145073 = sum of:
    0.025876073 = product of:
      0.06469018 = sum of:
        0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03661892 = score(doc=1184,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=1184,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, 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=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    I had the distinct pleasure of working with Pauline Atherton (Cochrane) during the 1960s, a period that can be considered the heyday of automated information system design and evaluation in the United States. I first met Pauline at the 1962 American Documentation Institute annual meeting in North Hollywood, Florida. My company, Westat Research Analysts, had recently been awarded a contract by the U.S. Patent Office to provide statistical support for the design of experiments with automated information retrieval systems. I was asked to attend the meeting to learn more about information retrieval systems and to begin informing others of U.S. Patent Office activities in this area. At one session, Pauline and I questioned a speaker about the research that he presented. Pauline's questions concerned the logic of their approach and mine, the statistical aspects. After the session, she came over to talk to me and we began a professional and personal friendship that continues to this day. During the 1960s, Pauline was involved in several important information-retrieval projects including a series of studies for the American Institute of Physics, a dissertation examining the relevance of retrieved documents, and development and evaluation of an online information-retrieval system. I had the opportunity to work with Pauline and her colleagues an four of those projects and will briefly describe her work in the 1960s.
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
  4. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.01 
    0.008508152 = product of:
  0.029778533 = sum of:
    0.010148132 = product of:
      0.05074066 = sum of:
        0.05074066 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05074066 = score(doc=4049,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0196304 = product of:
      0.0392608 = sum of:
        0.0392608 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0392608 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Proceedings of the llth TREC-conference held in Gaithersburg, Maryland (USA), November 19-22, 2002. Aim of the conference was discussion an retrieval and related information-seeking tasks for large test collection. 93 research groups used different techniques, for information retrieval from the same large database. This procedure makes it possible to compare the results. The tasks are: Cross-language searching, filtering, interactive searching, searching for novelty, question answering, searching for video shots, and Web searching.
  5. Buckley, C.; Voorhees, E.M.: Retrieval system evaluation (2005) 0.01 
    0.0073188585 = product of:
  0.051232006 = sum of:
    0.051232006 = product of:
      0.12808001 = sum of:
        0.07250175 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07250175 = score(doc=648,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
        0.055578265 = weight(_text_:system in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055578265 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  6. Voorhees, E.M.: On test collections for adaptive information retrieval (2008) 0.01 
    0.0052466425 = product of:
  0.036726497 = sum of:
    0.036726497 = product of:
      0.09181624 = sum of:
        0.058130726 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058130726 = score(doc=2444,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.5305404 = fieldWeight in 2444, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2444)
        0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 2444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033685513 = score(doc=2444,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2444, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2444)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Traditional Cranfield test collections represent an abstraction of a retrieval task that Sparck Jones calls the "core competency" of retrieval: a task that is necessary, but not sufficient, for user retrieval tasks. The abstraction facilitates research by controlling for (some) sources of variability, thus increasing the power of experiments that compare system effectiveness while reducing their cost. However, even within the highly-abstracted case of the Cranfield paradigm, meta-analysis demonstrates that the user/topic effect is greater than the system effect, so experiments must include a relatively large number of topics to distinguish systems' effectiveness. The evidence further suggests that changing the abstraction slightly to include just a bit more characterization of the user will result in a dramatic loss of power or increase in cost of retrieval experiments. Defining a new, feasible abstraction for supporting adaptive IR research will require winnowing the list of all possible factors that can affect retrieval behavior to a minimum number of essential factors.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Adaptive information retrieval"
  7. Rapke, K.: Automatische Indexierung von Volltexten für die Gruner+Jahr Pressedatenbank (2001) 0.01 
    0.005000235 = product of:
  0.035001643 = sum of:
    0.035001643 = product of:
      0.087504104 = sum of:
        0.053818595 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053818595 = score(doc=6386,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 6386, 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=6386)
        0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 6386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033685513 = score(doc=6386,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 6386, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6386)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Retrieval Tests sind die anerkannteste Methode, um neue Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung gegenüber traditionellen Verfahren zu rechtfertigen. Im Rahmen einer Diplomarbeit wurden zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Systeme der automatischen inhaltlichen Erschließung anhand der Pressedatenbank des Verlagshauses Gruner + Jahr (G+J) getestet und evaluiert. Untersucht wurde dabei natürlichsprachliches Retrieval im Vergleich zu Booleschem Retrieval. Bei den beiden Systemen handelt es sich zum einen um Autonomy von Autonomy Inc. und DocCat, das von IBM an die Datenbankstruktur der G+J Pressedatenbank angepasst wurde. Ersteres ist ein auf natürlichsprachlichem Retrieval basierendes, probabilistisches System. DocCat demgegenüber basiert auf Booleschem Retrieval und ist ein lernendes System, das auf Grund einer intellektuell erstellten Trainingsvorlage indexiert. Methodisch geht die Evaluation vom realen Anwendungskontext der Textdokumentation von G+J aus. Die Tests werden sowohl unter statistischen wie auch qualitativen Gesichtspunkten bewertet. Ein Ergebnis der Tests ist, dass DocCat einige Mängel gegenüber der intellektuellen Inhaltserschließung aufweist, die noch behoben werden müssen, während das natürlichsprachliche Retrieval von Autonomy in diesem Rahmen und für die speziellen Anforderungen der G+J Textdokumentation so nicht einsetzbar ist
  8. Larsen, B.; Ingwersen, P.; Lund, B.: Data fusion according to the principle of polyrepresentation (2009) 0.00 
    0.0046759406 = product of:
  0.01636579 = sum of:
    0.006550591 = product of:
      0.032752953 = sum of:
        0.032752953 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032752953 = score(doc=2752,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29892567 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    We report data fusion experiments carried out on the four best-performing retrieval models from TREC 5. Three were conceptually/algorithmically very different from one another; one was algorithmically similar to one of the former. The objective of the test was to observe the performance of the 11 logical data fusion combinations compared to the performance of the four individual models and their intermediate fusions when following the principle of polyrepresentation. This principle is based on cognitive IR perspective (Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005) and implies that each retrieval model is regarded as a representation of a unique interpretation of information retrieval (IR). It predicts that only fusions of very different, but equally good, IR models may outperform each constituent as well as their intermediate fusions. Two kinds of experiments were carried out. One tested restricted fusions, which entails that only the inner disjoint overlap documents between fused models are ranked. The second set of experiments was based on traditional data fusion methods. The experiments involved the 30 TREC 5 topics that contain more than 44 relevant documents. In all tests, the Borda and CombSUM scoring methods were used. Performance was measured by precision and recall, with document cutoff values (DCVs) at 100 and 15 documents, respectively. Results show that restricted fusions made of two, three, or four cognitively/algorithmically very different retrieval models perform significantly better than do the individual models at DCV100. At DCV15, however, the results of polyrepresentative fusion were less predictable. The traditional fusion method based on polyrepresentation principles demonstrates a clear picture of performance at both DCV levels and verifies the polyrepresentation predictions for data fusion in IR. Data fusion improves retrieval performance over their constituent IR models only if the models all are quite conceptually/algorithmically dissimilar and equally and well performing, in that order of importance.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:48:28
  9. Keenan, S.; Smeaton, A.F.; Keogh, G.: ¬The effect of pool depth on system evaluation in TREC (2001) 0.00 
    0.0043610106 = product of:
  0.030527074 = sum of:
    0.030527074 = product of:
      0.07631768 = sum of:
        0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03661892 = score(doc=5908,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 5908, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5908)
        0.03969876 = weight(_text_:system in 5908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03969876 = score(doc=5908,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.3479797 = fieldWeight in 5908, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5908)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The TREC benchmarking exercise for information retrieval (IR) experiments has provided a forum and an opportunity for IR researchers to evaluate the performance of their approaches to the IR task and has resulted in improvements in IR effectiveness. Typically, retrieval performance has been measured in terms of precision and recall, and comparisons between different IR approaches have been based on these measures. These measures are in turn dependent on the so-called "pool depth" used to discover relevant documents. Whereas there is evidence to suggest that the pool depth size used for TREC evaluations adequately identifies the relevant documents in the entire test data collection, we consider how it affects the evaluations of individual systems. The data used comes from the Sixth TREC conference, TREC-6. By fitting appropriate regression models we explore whether different pool depths confer advantages or disadvantages on different retrieval systems when they are compared. As a consequence of this model fitting, a pair of measures for each retrieval run, which are related to precision and recall, emerge. For each system, these give an extrapolation for the number of relevant documents the system would have been deemed to have retrieved if an indefinitely large pool size had been used, and also a measure of the sensitivity of each system to pool size. We concur that even on the basis of analyses of individual systems, the pool depth of 100 used by TREC is adequate
  10. Amitay, E.; Carmel, D.; Lempel, R.; Soffer, A.: Scaling IR-system evaluation using Term Relevance Sets (2004) 0.00 
    0.0043610106 = product of:
  0.030527074 = sum of:
    0.030527074 = product of:
      0.07631768 = sum of:
        0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03661892 = score(doc=4118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
        0.03969876 = weight(_text_:system in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03969876 = score(doc=4118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.3479797 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    SIGIR'04: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM-SIGIR Conference an Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Ed.: K. Järvelin, u.a
  11. Rapke, K.: Automatische Indexierung von Volltexten für die Gruner+Jahr Pressedatenbank (2001) 0.00 
    0.003943569 = product of:
  0.027604982 = sum of:
    0.027604982 = product of:
      0.069012456 = sum of:
        0.040941194 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040941194 = score(doc=5863,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 5863, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5863)
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 5863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=5863,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 5863, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5863)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Retrievaltests sind die anerkannteste Methode, um neue Verfahren der Inhaltserschließung gegenüber traditionellen Verfahren zu rechtfertigen. Im Rahmen einer Diplomarbeit wurden zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Systeme der automatischen inhaltlichen Erschließung anhand der Pressedatenbank des Verlagshauses Gruner + Jahr (G+J) getestet und evaluiert. Untersucht wurde dabei natürlichsprachliches Retrieval im Vergleich zu Booleschem Retrieval. Bei den beiden Systemen handelt es sich zum einen um Autonomy von Autonomy Inc. und DocCat, das von IBM an die Datenbankstruktur der G+J Pressedatenbank angepasst wurde. Ersteres ist ein auf natürlichsprachlichem Retrieval basierendes, probabilistisches System. DocCat demgegenüber basiert auf Booleschem Retrieval und ist ein lernendes System, das aufgrund einer intellektuell erstellten Trainingsvorlage indexiert. Methodisch geht die Evaluation vom realen Anwendungskontext der Textdokumentation von G+J aus. Die Tests werden sowohl unter statistischen wie auch qualitativen Gesichtspunkten bewertet. Ein Ergebnis der Tests ist, dass DocCat einige Mängel gegenüber der intellektuellen Inhaltserschließung aufweist, die noch behoben werden müssen, während das natürlichsprachliche Retrieval von Autonomy in diesem Rahmen und für die speziellen Anforderungen der G+J Textdokumentation so nicht einsetzbar ist
  12. Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008) 0.00 
    0.0038721121 = product of:
  0.027104784 = sum of:
    0.027104784 = product of:
      0.06776196 = sum of:
        0.0439427 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0439427 = score(doc=2342,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of the current paper is to test whether query translation is beneficial in web retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - The language pairs were Finnish-Swedish, English-German and Finnish-French. A total of 12-18 participants were recruited for each language pair. Each participant performed four retrieval tasks. The author's aim was to compare the performance of the translated queries with that of the target language queries. Thus, the author asked participants to formulate a source language query and a target language query for each task. The source language queries were translated into the target language utilizing a dictionary-based system. In English-German, also machine translation was utilized. The author used Google as the search engine. Findings - The results differed depending on the language pair. The author concluded that the dictionary coverage had an effect on the results. On average, the results of query-translation were better than in the traditional laboratory tests. Originality/value - This research shows that query translation in web is beneficial especially for users with moderate and non-active language skills. This is valuable information for developers of cross-language information retrieval systems.
  13. Baillie, M.; Azzopardi, L.; Ruthven, I.: Evaluating epistemic uncertainty under incomplete assessments (2008) 0.00 
    0.0037004396 = product of:
  0.025903076 = sum of:
    0.025903076 = product of:
      0.06475769 = sum of:
        0.03107218 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03107218 = score(doc=2065,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
        0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 2065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033685513 = score(doc=2065,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2065, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2065)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The thesis of this study is to propose an extended methodology for laboratory based Information Retrieval evaluation under incomplete relevance assessments. This new methodology aims to identify potential uncertainty during system comparison that may result from incompleteness. The adoption of this methodology is advantageous, because the detection of epistemic uncertainty - the amount of knowledge (or ignorance) we have about the estimate of a system's performance - during the evaluation process can guide and direct researchers when evaluating new systems over existing and future test collections. Across a series of experiments we demonstrate how this methodology can lead towards a finer grained analysis of systems. In particular, we show through experimentation how the current practice in Information Retrieval evaluation of using a measurement depth larger than the pooling depth increases uncertainty during system comparison.
  14. TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval (2005) 0.00 
    0.0036619888 = product of:
  0.02563392 = sum of:
    0.02563392 = product of:
      0.0640848 = sum of:
        0.054160107 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054160107 = score(doc=636,freq=70.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.49430186 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
              8.3666 = tf(freq=70.0), with freq of:
                70.0 = termFreq=70.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
        0.00992469 = weight(_text_:system in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00992469 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), a yearly workshop hosted by the US government's National Institute of Standards and Technology, provides the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. With the goal of accelerating research in this area, TREC created the first large test collections of full-text documents and standardized retrieval evaluation. The impact has been significant; since TREC's beginning in 1992, retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled. TREC has built a variety of large test collections, including collections for such specialized retrieval tasks as cross-language retrieval and retrieval of speech. Moreover, TREC has accelerated the transfer of research ideas into commercial systems, as demonstrated in the number of retrieval techniques developed in TREC that are now used in Web search engines. This book provides a comprehensive review of TREC research, summarizing the variety of TREC results, documenting the best practices in experimental information retrieval, and suggesting areas for further research. The first part of the book describes TREC's history, test collections, and retrieval methodology. Next, the book provides "track" reports -- describing the evaluations of specific tasks, including routing and filtering, interactive retrieval, and retrieving noisy text. The final part of the book offers perspectives on TREC from such participants as Microsoft Research, University of Massachusetts, Cornell University, University of Waterloo, City University of New York, and IBM. The book will be of interest to researchers in information retrieval and related technologies, including natural language processing.
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: 1. The Text REtrieval Conference - Ellen M. Voorhees and Donna K. Harman 2. The TREC Test Collections - Donna K. Harman 3. Retrieval System Evaluation - Chris Buckley and Ellen M. Voorhees 4. The TREC Ad Hoc Experiments - Donna K. Harman 5. Routing and Filtering - Stephen Robertson and Jamie Callan 6. The TREC Interactive Tracks: Putting the User into Search - Susan T. Dumais and Nicholas J. Belkin 7. Beyond English - Donna K. Harman 8. Retrieving Noisy Text - Ellen M. Voorhees and John S. Garofolo 9.The Very Large Collection and Web Tracks - David Hawking and Nick Craswell 10. Question Answering in TREC - Ellen M. Voorhees 11. The University of Massachusetts and a Dozen TRECs - James Allan, W. Bruce Croft and Jamie Callan 12. How Okapi Came to TREC - Stephen Robertson 13. The SMART Project at TREC - Chris Buckley 14. Ten Years of Ad Hoc Retrieval at TREC Using PIRCS - Kui-Lam Kwok 15. MultiText Experiments for TREC - Gordon V. Cormack, Charles L. A. Clarke, Christopher R. Palmer and Thomas R. Lynam 16. A Language-Modeling Approach to TREC - Djoerd Hiemstra and Wessel Kraaij 17. BM Research Activities at TREC - Eric W. Brown, David Carmel, Martin Franz, Abraham Ittycheriah, Tapas Kanungo, Yoelle Maarek, J. Scott McCarley, Robert L. Mack, John M. Prager, John R. Smith, Aya Soffer, Jason Y. Zien and Alan D. Marwick Epilogue: Metareflections on TREC - Karen Sparck Jones
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.6, S.910-911 (J.L. Vicedo u. J. Gomez): "The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a yearly workshop hosted by the U.S. government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that fosters and supports research in information retrieval as well as speeding the transfer of technology between research labs and industry. Since 1992, TREC has provided the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluations of different text retrieval methodologies. TREC impact has been very important and its success has been mainly supported by its continuous adaptation to the emerging information retrieval needs. Not in vain, TREC has built evaluation benchmarks for more than 20 different retrieval problems such as Web retrieval, speech retrieval, or question-answering. The large and intense trajectory of annual TREC conferences has resulted in an immense bulk of documents reflecting the different eval uation and research efforts developed. This situation makes it difficult sometimes to observe clearly how research in information retrieval (IR) has evolved over the course of TREC. TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval succeeds in organizing and condensing all this research into a manageable volume that describes TREC history and summarizes the main lessons learned. The book is organized into three parts. The first part is devoted to the description of TREC's origin and history, the test collections, and the evaluation methodology developed. The second part describes a selection of the major evaluation exercises (tracks), and the third part contains contributions from research groups that had a large and remarkable participation in TREC. Finally, Karen Spark Jones, one of the main promoters of research in IR, closes the book with an epilogue that analyzes the impact of TREC on this research field.
    ... TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval is a reliable and comprehensive review of the TREC program and has been adopted by NIST as the official history of TREC (see http://trec.nist.gov). We were favorably surprised by the book. Well structured and written, chapters are self-contained and the existence of references to specialized and more detailed publications is continuous, which makes it easier to expand into the different aspects analyzed in the text. This book succeeds in compiling TREC evolution from its inception in 1992 to 2003 in an adequate and manageable volume. Thanks to the impressive effort performed by the authors and their experience in the field, it can satiate the interests of a great variety of readers. While expert researchers in the IR field and IR-related industrial companies can use it as a reference manual, it seems especially useful for students and non-expert readers willing to approach this research area. Like NIST, we would recommend this reading to anyone who may be interested in textual information retrieval."
    LCSH
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Congresses
    Text REtrieval Conference
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval / Textverarbeitung / Aufsatzsammlung (BVB)
    Kongress / Information Retrieval / Kongress (GBV)
    Subject
    Information Retrieval / Textverarbeitung / Aufsatzsammlung (BVB)
    Kongress / Information Retrieval / Kongress (GBV)
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Congresses
    Text REtrieval Conference
  15. Morse, E.; Lewis, M.; Olsen, K.A.: Testing visual information retrieval methodologies case study : comparative analysis of textual, icon, graphical, and "spring" displays (2002) 0.00 
    0.0036594293 = product of:
  0.025616003 = sum of:
    0.025616003 = product of:
      0.064040005 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=191,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 191, 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=191)
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Although many different visual information retrieval systems have been proposed, few have been tested, and where testing has been performed, results were often inconclusive. Further, there is very little evidence of benchmarking systems against a common standard. An approach for testing novel interfaces is proposed that uses bottom-up, stepwise testing to allow evaluation of a visualization, itself, rather than restricting evaluation to the system instantiating it. This approach not only makes it easier to control variables, but the tests are also easier to perform. The methodology will be presented through a case study, where a new visualization technique is compared to more traditional ways of presenting data
  16. Ahlgren, P.; Grönqvist, L.: Evaluation of retrieval effectiveness with incomplete relevance data : theoretical and experimental comparison of three measures (2008) 0.00 
    0.0036594293 = product of:
  0.025616003 = sum of:
    0.025616003 = product of:
      0.064040005 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=2032,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2032, 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=2032)
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 2032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=2032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 2032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2032)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    This paper investigates two relatively new measures of retrieval effectiveness in relation to the problem of incomplete relevance data. The measures, Bpref and RankEff, which do not take into account documents that have not been relevance judged, are compared theoretically and experimentally. The experimental comparisons involve a third measure, the well-known mean uninterpolated average precision. The results indicate that RankEff is the most stable of the three measures when the amount of relevance data is reduced, with respect to system ranking and absolute values. In addition, RankEff has the lowest error-rate.
  17. Blandford, A.; Adams, A.; Attfield, S.; Buchanan, G.; Gow, J.; Makri, S.; Rimmer, J.; Warwick, C.: ¬The PRET A Rapporter framework : evaluating digital libraries from the perspective of information work (2008) 0.00 
    0.003613001 = product of:
  0.025291005 = sum of:
    0.025291005 = product of:
      0.06322751 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2021, 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=2021)
        0.041256163 = weight(_text_:system in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041256163 = score(doc=2021,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The strongest tradition of IR systems evaluation has focused on system effectiveness; more recently, there has been a growing interest in evaluation of Interactive IR systems, balancing system and user-oriented evaluation criteria. In this paper we shift the focus to considering how IR systems, and particularly digital libraries, can be evaluated to assess (and improve) their fit with users' broader work activities. Taking this focus, we answer a different set of evaluation questions that reveal more about the design of interfaces, user-system interactions and how systems may be deployed in the information working context. The planning and conduct of such evaluation studies share some features with the established methods for conducting IR evaluation studies, but come with a shift in emphasis; for example, a greater range of ethical considerations may be pertinent. We present the PRET A Rapporter framework for structuring user-centred evaluation studies and illustrate its application to three evaluation studies of digital library systems.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
  18. López-Ostenero, F.; Peinado, V.; Gonzalo, J.; Verdejo, F.: Interactive question answering : Is Cross-Language harder than monolingual searching? (2008) 0.00 
    0.0035357005 = product of:
  0.024749903 = sum of:
    0.024749903 = product of:
      0.061874755 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=2023,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 2023, 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=2023)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 2023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=2023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2023)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Is Cross-Language answer finding harder than Monolingual answer finding for users? In this paper we provide initial quantitative and qualitative evidence to answer this question. In our study, which involves 16 users searching questions under four different system conditions, we find that interactive cross-language answer finding is not substantially harder (in terms of accuracy) than its monolingual counterpart, using general purpose Machine Translation systems and standard Information Retrieval machinery, although it takes more time. We have also seen that users need more context to provide accurate answers (full documents) than what is usually considered by systems (paragraphs or passages). Finally, we also discuss the limitations of standard evaluation methodologies for interactive Information Retrieval experiments in the case of cross-language question answering.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
  19. Effektive Information Retrieval Verfahren in Theorie und Praxis : ausgewählte und erweiterte Beiträge des Vierten Hildesheimer Evaluierungs- und Retrievalworkshop (HIER 2005), Hildesheim, 20.7.2005 (2006) 0.00 
    0.0034926073 = product of:
  0.02444825 = sum of:
    0.02444825 = product of:
      0.06112062 = sum of:
        0.04011401 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04011401 = score(doc=5973,freq=60.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.36610767 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              7.745967 = tf(freq=60.0), with freq of:
                60.0 = termFreq=60.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
        0.02100661 = weight(_text_:system in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02100661 = score(doc=5973,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.18413356 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval hat sich zu einer Schlüsseltechnologie in der Wissensgesellschaft entwickelt. Die Anzahl der täglichen Anfragen an Internet-Suchmaschinen bildet nur einen Indikator für die große Bedeutung dieses Themas. Der Sammelbandband informiert über Themen wie Information Retrieval-Grundlagen, Retrieval Systeme, Digitale Bibliotheken, Evaluierung und Multilinguale Systeme, beschreibt Anwendungsszenarien und setzt sich mit neuen Herausforderungen an das Information Retrieval auseinander. Die Beiträge behandeln aktuelle Themen und neue Herausforderungen an das Information Retrieval. Die intensive Beteiligung der Informationswissenschaft der Universität Hildesheim am Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), einer europäischen Evaluierungsinitiative zur Erforschung mehrsprachiger Retrieval Systeme, berührt mehrere der Beiträge. Ebenso spielen Anwendungsszenarien und die Auseinandersetzung mit aktuellen und praktischen Fragestellungen eine große Rolle.
    Content
    Inhalt: Jan-Hendrik Scheufen: RECOIN: Modell offener Schnittstellen für Information-Retrieval-Systeme und -Komponenten Markus Nick, Klaus-Dieter Althoff: Designing Maintainable Experience-based Information Systems Gesine Quint, Steffen Weichert: Die benutzerzentrierte Entwicklung des Produkt- Retrieval-Systems EIKON der Blaupunkt GmbH Claus-Peter Klas, Sascha Kriewel, André Schaefer, Gudrun Fischer: Das DAFFODIL System - Strategische Literaturrecherche in Digitalen Bibliotheken Matthias Meiert: Entwicklung eines Modells zur Integration digitaler Dokumente in die Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim Daniel Harbig, René Schneider: Ontology Learning im Rahmen von MyShelf Michael Kluck, Marco Winter: Topic-Entwicklung und Relevanzbewertung bei GIRT: ein Werkstattbericht Thomas Mandl: Neue Entwicklungen bei den Evaluierungsinitiativen im Information Retrieval Joachim Pfister: Clustering von Patent-Dokumenten am Beispiel der Datenbanken des Fachinformationszentrums Karlsruhe Ralph Kölle, Glenn Langemeier, Wolfgang Semar: Programmieren lernen in kollaborativen Lernumgebungen Olga Tartakovski, Margaryta Shramko: Implementierung eines Werkzeugs zur Sprachidentifikation in mono- und multilingualen Texten Nina Kummer: Indexierungstechniken für das japanische Retrieval Suriya Na Nhongkai, Hans-Joachim Bentz: Bilinguale Suche mittels Konzeptnetzen Robert Strötgen, Thomas Mandl, René Schneider: Entwicklung und Evaluierung eines Question Answering Systems im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) Niels Jensen: Evaluierung von mehrsprachigem Web-Retrieval: Experimente mit dem EuroGOV-Korpus im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 57(2006) H.5, S.290-291 (C. Schindler): "Weniger als ein Jahr nach dem "Vierten Hildesheimer Evaluierungs- und Retrievalworkshop" (HIER 2005) im Juli 2005 ist der dazugehörige Tagungsband erschienen. Eingeladen hatte die Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft um ihre Forschungsergebnisse und die einiger externer Experten zum Thema Information Retrieval einem Fachpublikum zu präsentieren und zur Diskussion zu stellen. Unter dem Titel "Effektive Information Retrieval Verfahren in Theorie und Praxis" sind nahezu sämtliche Beiträge des Workshops in dem nun erschienenen, 15 Beiträge umfassenden Band gesammelt. Mit dem Schwerpunkt Information Retrieval (IR) wird ein Teilgebiet der Informationswissenschaft vorgestellt, das schon immer im Zentrum informationswissenschaftlicher Forschung steht. Ob durch den Leistungsanstieg von Prozessoren und Speichermedien, durch die Verbreitung des Internet über nationale Grenzen hinweg oder durch den stetigen Anstieg der Wissensproduktion, festzuhalten ist, dass in einer zunehmend wechselseitig vernetzten Welt die Orientierung und das Auffinden von Dokumenten in großen Wissensbeständen zu einer zentralen Herausforderung geworden sind. Aktuelle Verfahrensweisen zu diesem Thema, dem Information Retrieval, präsentiert der neue Band anhand von praxisbezogenen Projekten und theoretischen Diskussionen. Das Kernthema Information Retrieval wird in dem Sammelband in die Bereiche Retrieval-Systeme, Digitale Bibliothek, Evaluierung und Multilinguale Systeme untergliedert. Die Artikel der einzelnen Sektionen sind insgesamt recht heterogen und bieten daher keine Überschneidungen inhaltlicher Art. Jedoch ist eine vollkommene thematische Abdeckung der unterschiedlichen Bereiche ebenfalls nicht gegeben, was bei der Präsentation von Forschungsergebnissen eines Institutes und seiner Kooperationspartner auch nur bedingt erwartet werden kann. So lässt sich sowohl in der Gliederung als auch in den einzelnen Beiträgen eine thematische Verdichtung erkennen, die das spezielle Profil und die Besonderheit der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft im Feld des Information Retrieval wiedergibt. Teil davon ist die mehrsprachige und interdisziplinäre Ausrichtung, die die Schnittstellen zwischen Informationswissenschaft, Sprachwissenschaft und Informatik in ihrer praxisbezogenen und internationalen Forschung fokussiert.
    Im ersten Kapitel "Retrieval-Systeme" werden verschiedene Information RetrievalSysteme präsentiert und Verfahren zu deren Gestaltung diskutiert. Jan-Hendrik Scheufen stellt das Meta-Framework RECOIN zur Information Retrieval Forschung vor, das sich durch eine flexible Handhabung unterschiedlichster Applikationen auszeichnet und dadurch eine zentrierte Protokollierung und Steuerung von Retrieval-Prozessen ermöglicht. Dieses Konzept eines offenen, komponentenbasierten Systems wurde in Form eines Plug-Ins für die javabasierte Open-Source-Plattform Eclipse realisiert. Markus Nick und Klaus-Dieter Althoff erläutern in ihrem Beitrag, der übrigens der einzige englischsprachige Text im Buch ist, das Verfahren DILLEBIS zur Erhaltung und Pflege (Maintenance) von erfahrungsbasierten Informationssystemen. Sie bezeichnen dieses Verfahren als Maintainable Experience-based Information System und plädieren für eine Ausrichtung von erfahrungsbasierten Systemen entsprechend diesem Modell. Gesine Quint und Steffen Weichert stellen dagegen in ihrem Beitrag die benutzerzentrierte Entwicklung des Produkt-Retrieval-Systems EIKON vor, das in Kooperation mit der Blaupunkt GmbH realisiert wurde. In einem iterativen Designzyklus erfolgte die Gestaltung von gruppenspezifischen Interaktionsmöglichkeiten für ein Car-Multimedia-Zubehör-System. Im zweiten Kapitel setzen sich mehrere Autoren dezidierter mit dem Anwendungsgebiet "Digitale Bibliothek" auseinander. Claus-Peter Klas, Sascha Kriewel, Andre Schaefer und Gudrun Fischer von der Universität Duisburg-Essen stellen das System DAFFODIL vor, das durch eine Vielzahl an Werkzeugen zur strategischen Unterstützung bei Literaturrecherchen in digitalen Bibliotheken dient. Zusätzlich ermöglicht die Protokollierung sämtlicher Ereignisse den Einsatz des Systems als Evaluationsplattform. Der Aufsatz von Matthias Meiert erläutert die Implementierung von elektronischen Publikationsprozessen an Hochschulen am Beispiel von Abschlussarbeiten des Studienganges Internationales Informationsmanagement der Universität Hildesheim. Neben Rahmenbedingungen werden sowohl der Ist-Zustand als auch der Soll-Zustand des wissenschaftlichen elektronischen Publizierens in Form von gruppenspezifischen Empfehlungen dargestellt. Daniel Harbig und Rene Schneider beschreiben in ihrem Aufsatz zwei Verfahrensweisen zum maschinellen Erlernen von Ontologien, angewandt am virtuellen Bibliotheksregal MyShelf. Nach der Evaluation dieser beiden Ansätze plädieren die Autoren für ein semi-automatisiertes Verfahren zur Erstellung von Ontologien.
    "Evaluierung", das Thema des dritten Kapitels, ist in seiner Breite nicht auf das Information Retrieval beschränkt sondern beinhaltet ebenso einzelne Aspekte der Bereiche Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion sowie des E-Learning. Michael Muck und Marco Winter von der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik sowie dem Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften thematisieren in ihrem Beitrag den Einfluss der Fragestellung (Topic) auf die Bewertung von Relevanz und zeigen Verfahrensweisen für die Topic-Erstellung auf, die beim Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) Anwendung finden. Im darauf folgenden Aufsatz stellt Thomas Mandl verschiedene Evaluierungsinitiativen im Information Retrieval und aktuelle Entwicklungen dar. Joachim Pfister erläutert in seinem Beitrag das automatisierte Gruppieren, das sogenannte Clustering, von Patent-Dokumenten in den Datenbanken des Fachinformationszentrums Karlsruhe und evaluiert unterschiedliche Clusterverfahren auf Basis von Nutzerbewertungen. Ralph Kölle, Glenn Langemeier und Wolfgang Semar widmen sich dem kollaborativen Lernen unter den speziellen Bedingungen des Programmierens. Dabei werden das System VitaminL zur synchronen Bearbeitung von Programmieraufgaben und das Kennzahlensystem K-3 für die Bewertung kollaborativer Zusammenarbeit in einer Lehrveranstaltung angewendet. Der aktuelle Forschungsschwerpunkt der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft zeichnet sich im vierten Kapitel unter dem Thema "Multilinguale Systeme" ab. Hier finden sich die meisten Beiträge des Tagungsbandes wieder. Olga Tartakovski und Margaryta Shramko beschreiben und prüfen das System Langldent, das die Sprache von mono- und multilingualen Texten identifiziert. Die Eigenheiten der japanischen Schriftzeichen stellt Nina Kummer dar und vergleicht experimentell die unterschiedlichen Techniken der Indexierung. Suriya Na Nhongkai und Hans-Joachim Bentz präsentieren und prüfen eine bilinguale Suche auf Basis von Konzeptnetzen, wobei die Konzeptstruktur das verbindende Elemente der beiden Textsammlungen darstellt. Das Entwickeln und Evaluieren eines mehrsprachigen Question-Answering-Systems im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), das die alltagssprachliche Formulierung von konkreten Fragestellungen ermöglicht, wird im Beitrag von Robert Strötgen, Thomas Mandl und Rene Schneider thematisiert. Den Schluss bildet der Aufsatz von Niels Jensen, der ein mehrsprachiges Web-Retrieval-System ebenfalls im Zusammenhang mit dem CLEF anhand des multilingualen EuroGOVKorpus evaluiert.
    Abschließend lässt sich sagen, dass der Tagungsband einen gelungenen Überblick über die Information Retrieval Projekte der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft und ihrer Kooperationspartner gibt. Die einzelnen Beiträge sind sehr anregend und auf einem hohen Niveau angesiedelt. Ein kleines Hindernis für den Leser stellt die inhaltliche und strukturelle Orientierung innerhalb des Bandes dar. Der Bezug der einzelnen Artikel zum Thema des Kapitels wird zwar im Vorwort kurz erläutert. Erschwert wird die Orientierung im Buch jedoch durch fehlende Kapitelüberschriften am Anfang der einzelnen Sektionen. Außerdem ist zu erwähnen, dass einer der Artikel einen anderen Titel als im Inhaltsverzeichnis angekündigt trägt. Sieht der Leser von diesen formalen Mängeln ab, wird er reichlich mit praxisbezogenen und theoretisch fundierten Projektdarstellungen und Forschungsergebnissen belohnt. Dies insbesondere, da nicht nur aktuelle Themen der Informationswissenschaft aufgegriffen, sondern ebenso weiterentwickelt und durch die speziellen interdisziplinären und internationalen Bedingungen in Hildesheim geformt werden. Dabei zeigt sich anhand der verschiedenen Projekte, wie gut die Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft in die Community überregionaler Informationseinrichtungen und anderer deutscher informationswissenschaftlicher Forschungsgruppen eingebunden ist. Damit hat der Workshop bei einer weiteren Öffnung der Expertengruppe das Potential zu einer eigenständigen Institution im Bereich des Information Retrieval zu werden. In diesem Sinne lässt sich auf weitere fruchtbare Workshops und deren Veröffentlichungen hoffen. Ein nächster Workshop der Universität Hildesheim zum Thema Information Retrieval, organisiert mit der Fachgruppe Information Retrieval der Gesellschaft für Informatik, kündigt sich bereits für den 9. bis 13- Oktober 2006 an."
  20. Lioma, C.; Ounis, I.: ¬A syntactically-based query reformulation technique for information retrieval (2008) 0.00 
    0.0034184116 = product of:
  0.02392888 = sum of:
    0.02392888 = product of:
      0.0598222 = sum of:
        0.043942697 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043942697 = score(doc=2031,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40105084 = fieldWeight in 2031, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2031)
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 2031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=2031,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2031, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2031)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Whereas in language words of high frequency are generally associated with low content [Bookstein, A., & Swanson, D. (1974). Probabilistic models for automatic indexing. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 25(5), 312-318; Damerau, F. J. (1965). An experiment in automatic indexing. American Documentation, 16, 283-289; Harter, S. P. (1974). A probabilistic approach to automatic keyword indexing. PhD thesis, University of Chicago; Sparck-Jones, K. (1972). A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 28, 11-21; Yu, C., & Salton, G. (1976). Precision weighting - an effective automatic indexing method. Journal of the Association for Computer Machinery (ACM), 23(1), 76-88], shallow syntactic fragments of high frequency generally correspond to lexical fragments of high content [Lioma, C., & Ounis, I. (2006). Examining the content load of part of speech blocks for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the international committee on computational linguistics and the association for computational linguistics (COLING/ACL 2006), Sydney, Australia]. We implement this finding to Information Retrieval, as follows. We present a novel automatic query reformulation technique, which is based on shallow syntactic evidence induced from various language samples, and used to enhance the performance of an Information Retrieval system. Firstly, we draw shallow syntactic evidence from language samples of varying size, and compare the effect of language sample size upon retrieval performance, when using our syntactically-based query reformulation (SQR) technique. Secondly, we compare SQR to a state-of-the-art probabilistic pseudo-relevance feedback technique. Additionally, we combine both techniques and evaluate their compatibility. We evaluate our proposed technique across two standard Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) English test collections, and three statistically different weighting models. Experimental results suggest that SQR markedly enhances retrieval performance, and is at least comparable to pseudo-relevance feedback. Notably, the combination of SQR and pseudo-relevance feedback further enhances retrieval performance considerably. These collective experimental results confirm the tenet that high frequency shallow syntactic fragments correspond to content-bearing lexical fragments.

Authors

Languages

  • e 83
  • d 15
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 92
  • m 5
  • s 3
  • el 2
  • x 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications