Search (335 results, page 1 of 17)

0.061677005 = product of:
  0.18503101 = sum of:
    0.04194983 = weight(_text_:web in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194983 = score(doc=3455,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3455, 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=3455)
    0.0070079383 = weight(_text_:information in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070079383 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
    0.113515414 = weight(_text_:extraction in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113515414 = score(doc=3455,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20380433 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.941145 = idf(docFreq=315, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.55698234 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.941145 = idf(docFreq=315, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
    0.02255783 = weight(_text_:system in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255783 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 3455, 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=3455)
  0.33333334 = coord(4/12)

Abstract

Web-based search engines such as Google and NorthernLight return documents that are relevant to a user query, not answers to user questions. We have developed an architecture that augments existing search engines so that they support natural language question answering. The process entails five steps: query modulation, document retrieval, passage extraction, phrase extraction, and answer ranking. In this article, we describe some probabilistic approaches to the last three of these stages. We show how our techniques apply to a number of existing search engines, and we also present results contrasting three different methods for question answering. Our algorithm, probabilistic phrase reranking (PPR), uses proximity and question type features and achieves a total reciprocal document rank of .20 an the TREC8 corpus. Our techniques have been implemented as a Web-accessible system, called NSIR.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.6, S.571-583

0.032217927 = product of:
  0.12887171 = sum of:
    0.032292992 = weight(_text_:web in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032292992 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
    0.020893635 = weight(_text_:information in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020893635 = score(doc=1734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
    0.075685084 = weight(_text_:suche in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075685084 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17138755 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.441602 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

Die Menge an Daten im Internet steigt weiter rapide an. Damit wächst auch der Bedarf an qualitativ hochwertigen Information Retrieval Diensten zur Orientierung und problemorientierten Suche. Die Entscheidung für die Benutzung oder Beschaffung von Information Retrieval Software erfordert aussagekräftige Evaluierungsergebnisse. Dieser Beitrag stellt neuere Entwicklungen bei der Evaluierung von Information Retrieval Systemen vor und zeigt den Trend zu Spezialisierung und Diversifizierung von Evaluierungsstudien, die den Realitätsgrad derErgebnisse erhöhen. DerSchwerpunkt liegt auf dem Retrieval von Fachtexten, Internet-Seiten und Multimedia-Objekten.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 54(2003) H.4, S.203-210

0.030682199 = product of:
  0.18409319 = sum of:
    0.020230178 = weight(_text_:information in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020230178 = score(doc=2300,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
    0.16386302 = weight(_text_:suche in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16386302 = score(doc=2300,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17138755 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.9560964 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

Nach einer Erläuterung der Grundlagen der Fuzzylogik wird das Prinzip der unscharfen Suche dargestellt und die Unterschiede zum herkömmlichen Information Retrieval beschrieben. Am Beispiel der Suche nach Steinen für ein Mauerwerk wird gezeigt, wie eine unscharfe Suche in der D&WFuzzydatenbank erfolgreich durchgeführt werden kann und zu eindeutigen Ergebnissen führt.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.6/7, S.351-352

0.030371247 = product of:
  0.12148499 = sum of:
    0.0115625085 = weight(_text_:information in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0115625085 = score(doc=3276,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.09365552 = weight(_text_:suche in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09365552 = score(doc=3276,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17138755 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.5464546 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.016266957 = product of:
      0.032533914 = sum of:
        0.032533914 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032533914 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.

Date

20. 3.2005 16:23:22

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.2, S.87-92

0.029091818 = product of:
  0.1745509 = sum of:
    0.014015877 = weight(_text_:information in 6415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014015877 = score(doc=6415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6415)
    0.16053502 = weight(_text_:extraction in 6415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16053502 = score(doc=6415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20380433 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.941145 = idf(docFreq=315, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.78769195 = fieldWeight in 6415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.941145 = idf(docFreq=315, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6415)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Source

Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.5, S.741-761

0.028776528 = product of:
  0.11510611 = sum of:
    0.009343918 = weight(_text_:information in 6625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009343918 = score(doc=6625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6625)
    0.075685084 = weight(_text_:suche in 6625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075685084 = score(doc=6625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17138755 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.441602 = fieldWeight in 6625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6625)
    0.030077105 = weight(_text_:system in 6625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030077105 = score(doc=6625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 6625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6625)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag werden einige Forschungsergebnisse des Information Retrieval vorgestellt, die unmittelbar zur Verbesserung der Retrievalqualität für bereits existierende Datenbanken eingesetzt werden können: Linguistische Algorithmen zur Grund- und Stammformreduktion unterstützen die Suche nach Flexions- und Derivationsformen von Suchtermen. Rankingalgorithmen, die Frage- und Dokumentterme gewichten, führen zu signifikant besseren Retrievalergebnissen als beim Booleschen Retrieval. Durch Relevance Feedback können die Retrievalqualität weiter gesteigert und außerdem der Benutzer bei der sukzessiven Modifikation seiner Frageformulierung unterstützt werden. Es wird eine benutzerfreundliche Bedienungsoberfläche für ein System vorgestellt, das auf diesen Konzepten basiert.

0.023819609 = product of:
  0.071458824 = sum of:
    0.02018312 = weight(_text_:web in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018312 = score(doc=2591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2591, 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=2591)
    0.008258934 = weight(_text_:information in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258934 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
    0.026584659 = weight(_text_:system in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026584659 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2591, 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=2591)
    0.016432108 = product of:
      0.032864217 = sum of:
        0.032864217 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032864217 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(4/12)

Abstract

Purpose In a system-based approach, replicating the web would require large test collections, and judging the relevancy of all documents per topic in creating relevance judgment through human assessors is infeasible. Due to the large amount of documents that requires judgment, there are possible errors introduced by human assessors because of disagreements. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This study explores exponential variation and document ranking methods that generate a reliable set of relevance judgments (pseudo relevance judgments) to reduce human efforts. These methods overcome problems with large amounts of documents for judgment while avoiding human disagreement errors during the judgment process. This study utilizes two key factors: number of occurrences of each document per topic from all the system runs; and document rankings to generate the alternate methods. Findings The effectiveness of the proposed method is evaluated using the correlation coefficient of ranked systems using mean average precision scores between the original Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) relevance judgments and pseudo relevance judgments. The results suggest that the proposed document ranking method with a pool depth of 100 could be a reliable alternative to reduce human effort and disagreement errors involved in generating TREC-like relevance judgments. Originality/value Simple methods proposed in this study show improvement in the correlation coefficient in generating alternate relevance judgment without human assessors while contributing to information retrieval evaluation.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
18. 9.2018 18:22:56

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.700-714

0.023486678 = product of:
  0.09394671 = sum of:
    0.008258934 = weight(_text_:information in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258934 = score(doc=5152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
    0.06688959 = weight(_text_:extraction in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06688959 = score(doc=5152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20380433 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.941145 = idf(docFreq=315, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.32820496 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.941145 = idf(docFreq=315, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
    0.018798191 = weight(_text_:system in 5152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018798191 = score(doc=5152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5152)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

Waters and Amoudi describe GeoSearcher, a prototype ranking program that arranges search engine results along a geo-spatial dimension without the provision of geo-spatial meta-tags or the use of geo-spatial feature extraction. GeoSearcher uses URL analysis, IptoLL, Whois, and the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names to determine site location. It accepts the first 200 sites returned by a search engine, identifies the coordinates, calculates their distance from a reference point and ranks in ascending order by this value. For any retrieved site the system checks if it has already been located in the current session, then sends the domain name to Whois to generate a return of a two letter country code and an area code. With no success the name is stripped one level and resent. If this fails the top level domain is tested for being a country code. Any remaining unmatched names go to IptoLL. Distance is calculated using the center point of the geographic area and a provided reference location. A test run on a set of 100 URLs from a search was successful in locating 90 sites. Eighty three pages could be manually found and 68 had sufficient information to verify location determination. Of these 65 ( 95%) had been assigned reasonably correct geographic locations. A random set of URLs used instead of a search result, yielded 80% success.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.2, S.140-151

0.023171356 = product of:
  0.069514066 = sum of:
    0.011417297 = weight(_text_:web in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011417297 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.1019847 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.011443916 = weight(_text_:information in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011443916 = score(doc=5973,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.02675872 = weight(_text_:suche in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02675872 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17138755 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.15612988 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.019894136 = weight(_text_:system in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019894136 = score(doc=5973,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(4/12)

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."

0.022176778 = product of:
  0.08870711 = sum of:
    0.022834593 = weight(_text_:web in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022834593 = score(doc=7,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 7, 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=7)
    0.012360842 = weight(_text_:information in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012360842 = score(doc=7,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
    0.053511675 = weight(_text_:extraction in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053511675 = score(doc=7,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20380433 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.941145 = idf(docFreq=315, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.26256397 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.941145 = idf(docFreq=315, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

The second edition of Understanding Search Engines: Mathematical Modeling and Text Retrieval follows the basic premise of the first edition by discussing many of the key design issues for building search engines and emphasizing the important role that applied mathematics can play in improving information retrieval. The authors discuss important data structures, algorithms, and software as well as user-centered issues such as interfaces, manual indexing, and document preparation. Significant changes bring the text up to date on current information retrieval methods: for example the addition of a new chapter on link-structure algorithms used in search engines such as Google. The chapter on user interface has been rewritten to specifically focus on search engine usability. In addition the authors have added new recommendations for further reading and expanded the bibliography, and have updated and streamlined the index to make it more reader friendly.

Content

Inhalt: Introduction Document File Preparation - Manual Indexing - Information Extraction - Vector Space Modeling - Matrix Decompositions - Query Representations - Ranking and Relevance Feedback - Searching by Link Structure - User Interface - Book Format Document File Preparation Document Purification and Analysis - Text Formatting - Validation - Manual Indexing - Automatic Indexing - Item Normalization - Inverted File Structures - Document File - Dictionary List - Inversion List - Other File Structures Vector Space Models Construction - Term-by-Document Matrices - Simple Query Matching - Design Issues - Term Weighting - Sparse Matrix Storage - Low-Rank Approximations Matrix Decompositions QR Factorization - Singular Value Decomposition - Low-Rank Approximations - Query Matching - Software - Semidiscrete Decomposition - Updating Techniques Query Management Query Binding - Types of Queries - Boolean Queries - Natural Language Queries - Thesaurus Queries - Fuzzy Queries - Term Searches - Probabilistic Queries Ranking and Relevance Feedback Performance Evaluation - Precision - Recall - Average Precision - Genetic Algorithms - Relevance Feedback Searching by Link Structure HITS Method - HITS Implementation - HITS Summary - PageRank Method - PageRank Adjustments - PageRank Implementation - PageRank Summary User Interface Considerations General Guidelines - Search Engine Interfaces - Form Fill-in - Display Considerations - Progress Indication - No Penalties for Error - Results - Test and Retest - Final Considerations Further Reading

LCSH

Web search engines

RSWK

Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)

Subject

Web search engines
Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)

0.020837821 = product of:
  0.083351284 = sum of:
    0.024219744 = weight(_text_:web in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024219744 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
    0.014015877 = weight(_text_:information in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014015877 = score(doc=1007,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
    0.04511566 = weight(_text_:system in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04511566 = score(doc=1007,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

Due to the large repository of documents available on the web, users are usually inundated by a large volume of information, most of which is found to be irrelevant. Since user perspectives vary, a client-side text filtering system that learns the user's perspective can reduce the problem of irrelevant retrieval. In this paper, we have provided the design of a customized text information filtering system which learns user preferences and modifies the initial query to fetch better documents. It uses a rough-fuzzy reasoning scheme. The rough-set based reasoning takes care of natural language nuances, like synonym handling, very elegantly. The fuzzy decider provides qualitative grading to the documents for the user's perusal. We have provided the detailed design of the various modules and some results related to the performance analysis of the system.

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.2, S.195-216

0.020390071 = product of:
  0.081560284 = sum of:
    0.048941467 = weight(_text_:web in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941467 = score(doc=1319,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
    0.016351856 = weight(_text_:information in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016351856 = score(doc=1319,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
    0.016266957 = product of:
      0.032533914 = sum of:
        0.032533914 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032533914 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1319, 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=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

Keyword based querying has been an immediate and efficient way to specify and retrieve related information that the user inquired. However, conventional document ranking based on an automatic assessment of document relevance to the query may not be the best approach when little information is given. Proposes an idea to integrate 2 existing techniques, query expansion and relevance feedback to achieve a concept-based information search for the Web

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue devoted to the Proceedings of the 7th International World Wide Web Conference, held 14-18 April 1998, Brisbane, Australia

0.018813506 = product of:
  0.056440514 = sum of:
    0.02018312 = weight(_text_:web in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018312 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
    0.0058399485 = weight(_text_:information in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058399485 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.018798191 = weight(_text_:system in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018798191 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
    0.011619256 = product of:
      0.023238512 = sum of:
        0.023238512 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023238512 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, 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=56)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(4/12)

Abstract

The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:32:43

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.4, S.462-478

0.018630175 = product of:
  0.0745207 = sum of:
    0.048439488 = weight(_text_:web in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048439488 = score(doc=2239,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 2239, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2239)
    0.012138106 = weight(_text_:information in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012138106 = score(doc=2239,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2239, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2239)
    0.013943106 = product of:
      0.027886212 = sum of:
        0.027886212 = weight(_text_:22 in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027886212 = score(doc=2239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

Genetic-based evolutionary learning algorithms, such as genetic algorithms (GAs) and genetic programming (GP), have been applied to information retrieval (IR) since the 1980s. Recently, GP has been applied to a new IR taskdiscovery of ranking functions for Web search-and has achieved very promising results. However, in our prior research, only one fitness function has been used for GP-based learning. It is unclear how other fitness functions may affect ranking function discovery for Web search, especially since it is weIl known that choosing a proper fitness function is very important for the effectiveness and efficiency of evolutionary algorithms. In this article, we report our experience in contrasting different fitness function designs an GP-based learning using a very large Web corpus. Our results indicate that the design of fitness functions is instrumental in performance improvement. We also give recommendations an the design of fitness functions for genetic-based information retrieval experiments.

Date

31. 5.2004 19:22:06

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.7, S.628-636

0.0178789 = product of:
  0.0715156 = sum of:
    0.04194983 = weight(_text_:web in 3310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194983 = score(doc=3310,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3310, 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=3310)
    0.0070079383 = weight(_text_:information in 3310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070079383 = score(doc=3310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3310, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3310)
    0.02255783 = weight(_text_:system in 3310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255783 = score(doc=3310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 3310, 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=3310)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

This research investigated several important issues in using implicit feedback techniques to assist searchers with difficulties in formulating effective search strategies. It focused on examining the relationship between types of behavioral evidence that can be captured from Web searches and searchers' interests. A carefully crafted observation study was conducted to capture, examine, and elucidate the analytical processes and work practices of human analysts when they simulated the role of an implicit feedback system by trying to infer searchers' interests from behavioral traces. Findings provided rare insight into the complexities and nuances in using behavioral evidence for implicit feedback and led to the proposal of an implicit feedback model for Web search that bridged previous studies on behavioral evidence and implicit feedback measures. A new level of analysis termed an analytical lens emerged from the data and provides a road map for future research on this topic.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.30-49

0.017574746 = product of:
  0.070298985 = sum of:
    0.024219744 = weight(_text_:web in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024219744 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
    0.0070079383 = weight(_text_:information in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070079383 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
    0.039071307 = weight(_text_:system in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039071307 = score(doc=1035,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 1035, 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=1035)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

Search engines fail to make a clear distinction between items of varying relevance when presenting search results to users. Instead, they rely on the user of the system to estimate which items are relevant, partially relevant, or not relevant. The user of the system is given the task of distinguishing between documents that are relevant to different degrees. This process often hinders the accessibility of relevant or partially relevant documents, particularly when the results set is large and documents of varying relevance are scattered throughout the set. In this paper, we present a clustering scheme that groups documents within relevant, partially relevant, and not relevant regions for a given search. A clustering algorithm accomplishes the task of clustering documents based on relevance. The clusters were evaluated by end-users issuing categorical, interval, and descriptive relevance judgments for the documents returned from a search. The degree of overlap between users and the system for each of the clustered regions was measured to determine the overall effectiveness of the algorithm. This research showed that clustering documents on the Web by regions of relevance is highly necessary and quite feasible.

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.5, S.1035-1050

0.01754507 = product of:
  0.07018028 = sum of:
    0.017165873 = weight(_text_:information in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165873 = score(doc=2419,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
    0.039071307 = weight(_text_:system in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039071307 = score(doc=2419,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 2419, 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=2419)
    0.013943106 = product of:
      0.027886212 = sum of:
        0.027886212 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027886212 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120126344 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03430388 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.

Date

16.11.2008 16:22:48

0.017508963 = product of:
  0.105053775 = sum of:
    0.09679484 = weight(_text_:web in 6028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09679484 = score(doc=6028,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.86461735 = fieldWeight in 6028, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6028)
    0.008258934 = weight(_text_:information in 6028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258934 = score(doc=6028,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 6028, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6028)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

This research is part of the ongoing study to better understand web page ranking on the web. It looks at a web page as a graph structure or a web graph, and tries to classify different web graphs in the new coordinate space: (out-degree, in-degree). The out-degree coordinate od is defined as the number of outgoing web pages from a given web page. The in-degree id coordinate is the number of web pages that point to a given web page. In this new coordinate space a metric is built to classify how close or far different web graphs are. Google's web ranking algorithm (Brin & Page, 1998) on ranking web pages is applied in this new coordinate space. The results of the algorithm has been modified to fit different topological web graph structures. Also the algorithm was not successful in the case of general web graphs and new ranking web algorithms have to be considered. This study does not look at enhancing web ranking by adding any contextual information. It only considers web links as a source to web page ranking. The author believes that understanding the underlying web page as a graph will help design better ranking web algorithms, enhance retrieval and web performance, and recommends using graphs as a part of visual aid for browsing engine designers

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.736-747

0.016609509 = product of:
  0.09965705 = sum of:
    0.0846185 = weight(_text_:suche in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0846185 = score(doc=2806,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17138755 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.49372604 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
    0.015038553 = weight(_text_:system in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015038553 = score(doc=2806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2806, 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=2806)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

Spätestens bei der Suche nach E-Mails, PDF-Dokumenten oder Bildern mit Texten kapituliert die Windows-Suche. Vier von neun Desktop-Suchtools finden dagegen beinahe jede verborgene Datei.

Content

"Bitte suchen Sie alle Unterlagen, die im PC zum Ibelshäuser-Vertrag in Sprockhövel gespeichert sind. Finden Sie alles, was wir haben - Dokumente, Tabellen, Präsentationen, Scans, E-Mails. Und erledigen Sie das gleich! « Wer diese Aufgabe an das Windows-eigene Suchmodul vergibt, wird zwangsläufig enttäuscht. Denn das Betriebssystem beherrscht weder die formatübergreifende Recherche noch die Kontextsuche, die für solche komplexen Aufträge nötig sind. Professionelle Desktop-Suchmaschinen erledigen Aufgaben dieser Art jedoch im Handumdrehen - genauer gesagt in einer einzigen Sekunde. Spitzenprogramme wie Global Brain benötigen dafür nicht einmal umfangreiche Abfrageformulare. Es genügt, einen Satz im Eingabefeld zu formulieren, der das Thema der gewünschten Dokumente eingrenzt. Dabei suchen die Programme über alle Laufwerke, die sich auf dem System einbinden lassen - also auch im Netzwerk-Ordner (Shared Folder), sofern dieser freigegeben wurde. Allen Testkandidaten - mit Ausnahme von Search 32 - gemeinsam ist, dass sie weitaus bessere Rechercheergebnisse abliefern als Windows, deutlich schneller arbeiten und meist auch in den Online-Postfächern stöbern. Wer schon öfter vergeblich über die Windows-Suche nach wichtigen Dokumenten gefahndet hat, kommt angesichts der Qualität der Search-Engines kaum mehr um die Anschaffung eines Desktop-Suchtools herum. Aber Microsoft will nachbessern. Für den Windows-XP-Nachfolger Longhorn wirbt der Hersteller vor allem mit dem Hinweis auf das neue Dateisystem WinFS, das sämtliche Files auf der Festplatte über Meta-Tags indiziert und dem Anwender damit lange Suchläufe erspart. So sollen sich anders als bei Windows XP alle Dateien zu bestimmten Themen in wenigen Sekunden auflisten lassen - unabhängig vom Format und vom physikalischen Speicherort der Files. Für die Recherche selbst ist dann weder der Dateiname noch das Erstelldatum ausschlaggebend. Anhand der kontextsensitiven Suche von WinFS kann der Anwender einfach einen Suchbefehl wie »Vertragsabschluss mit Firma XYZ, Neunkirchen/Saar« eingeben, der dann ohne Umwege zum Ziel führt."

Footnote

Darin auch 2 Teilbeiträge: (1) Know-how - Suchverfahren; (2) Praxis - Windows-Suche und Indexdienst

0.015954414 = product of:
  0.06381766 = sum of:
    0.03425189 = weight(_text_:web in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03425189 = score(doc=6112,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.111951075 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
    0.0070079383 = weight(_text_:information in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070079383 = score(doc=6112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.060219705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
    0.02255783 = weight(_text_:system in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02255783 = score(doc=6112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10804188 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03430388 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 6112, 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=6112)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

Enormous Web search engine databases combined with short search queries result in large result sets that are often difficult to access. Result ranking works fairly well, but users need help when it fails. For these situations, we propose a filtering interface that is inspired by keyword-in-context (KWIC) indices. The user interface lists the most frequent keyword contexts (fKWIC). When a context is selected, the corresponding results are displayed in the result list, allowing users to concentrate on the specific context. We compared the keyword context index user interface to the rank order result listing in an experiment with 36 participants. The results show that the proposed user interface was 29% faster in finding relevant results, and the precision of the selected results was 19% higher. In addition, participants showed positive attitudes toward the system.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.12, S.1606-1615