Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Pemberton, J.K.; Ojala, M.; Garman, N.: Head to head : searching the Web versus traditional services (1998) 0.02 
    0.02230953 = product of:
  0.10597027 = sum of:
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
    0.04344638 = weight(_text_:services in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04344638 = score(doc=3572,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.45892134 = fieldWeight in 3572, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3572)
    0.013974689 = product of:
      0.027949378 = sum of:
        0.027949378 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027949378 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3572, 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=3572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21052632 = coord(4/19)
    Abstract
    Describes of 3 searches on the topic of virtual communities done on the WWW using HotBot and traditional databases using LEXIS-NEXIS and ABI/Inform. Concludes that the WWW is a good starting place for a broad concept search but the traditional services are better for more precise topics
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28
  2. MacFarlane, A.: Evaluation of web search for the information practitioner (2007) 0.02 
    0.018849121 = product of:
  0.11937777 = sum of:
    0.048168425 = weight(_text_:web in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048168425 = score(doc=817,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.57238775 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
    0.048168425 = weight(_text_:web in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048168425 = score(doc=817,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.57238775 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
    0.023040922 = weight(_text_:services in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023040922 = score(doc=817,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 817, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=817)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of the paper is to put forward a structured mechanism for web search evaluation. The paper seeks to point to useful scientific research and show how information practitioners can use these methods in evaluation of search on the web for their users. Design/methodology/approach - The paper puts forward an approach which utilizes traditional laboratory-based evaluation measures such as average precision/precision at N documents, augmented with diagnostic measures such as link broken, etc., which are used to show why precision measures are depressed as well as the quality of the search engines crawling mechanism. Findings - The paper shows how to use diagnostic measures in conjunction with precision in order to evaluate web search. Practical implications - The methodology presented in this paper will be useful to any information professional who regularly uses web search as part of their information seeking and needs to evaluate web search services. Originality/value - The paper argues that the use of diagnostic measures is essential in web search, as precision measures on their own do not allow a searcher to understand why search results differ between search engines.
  3. Mandl, T.: Web- und Multimedia-Dokumente : Neuere Entwicklungen bei der Evaluierung von Information Retrieval Systemen (2003) 0.02 
    0.016648673 = product of:
  0.10544159 = sum of:
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.056892388 = weight(_text_:suche in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056892388 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    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.
  4. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.01 
    0.013047416 = product of:
  0.08263364 = sum of:
    0.034329474 = weight(_text_:web in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034329474 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.034329474 = weight(_text_:web in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034329474 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.013974689 = product of:
      0.027949378 = sum of:
        0.027949378 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027949378 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Die deutschen Suchmaschinen, Abacho, Acoon, Fireball und Lycos sowie die Web-Kataloge Web.de und Yahoo! werden einem Qualitätstest nach relativem Recall, Precision und Availability unterzogen. Die Methoden der Retrievaltests werden vorgestellt. Im Durchschnitt werden bei einem Cut-Off-Wert von 25 ein Recall von rund 22%, eine Precision von knapp 19% und eine Verfügbarkeit von 24% erreicht
  5. Geist, K.: Qualität und Relevanz von bildungsbezogenen Suchergebnissen bei der Suche im Web (2012) 0.01 
    0.012486503 = product of:
  0.07908119 = sum of:
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 570, 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=570)
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 570, 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=570)
    0.042669293 = weight(_text_:suche in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042669293 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3312015 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
  6. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000) 0.01 
    0.010840886 = product of:
  0.10298842 = sum of:
    0.05149421 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149421 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
    0.05149421 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149421 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages
  7. Clarke, S.J.; Willett, P.: Estimating the recall performance of Web search engines (1997) 0.01 
    0.010220885 = product of:
  0.09709841 = sum of:
    0.048549205 = weight(_text_:web in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048549205 = score(doc=760,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
    0.048549205 = weight(_text_:web in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048549205 = score(doc=760,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Reports a comparison of the retrieval effectiveness of the AltaVista, Excite and Lycos Web search engines. Describes a method for comparing the recall of the 3 sets of searches, despite the fact that they are carried out on non identical sets of Web pages. It is thus possible, unlike previous comparative studies of Web search engines, to consider both recall and precision when evaluating the effectiveness of search engines
  8. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.01 
    0.009872193 = product of:
  0.062523894 = sum of:
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
    0.013974689 = product of:
      0.027949378 = sum of:
        0.027949378 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027949378 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = 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)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    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.
  9. Lazonder, A.W.; Biemans, H.J.A.; Wopereis, I.G.J.H.: Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the World Wide Web (2000) 0.01 
    0.008570474 = product of:
  0.0814195 = sum of:
    0.04070975 = weight(_text_:web in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070975 = score(doc=4598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
    0.04070975 = weight(_text_:web in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070975 = score(doc=4598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Searching for information on the WWW basically comes down to locating an appropriate Web site and to retrieving relevant information from that site. This study examined the effect of a user's WWW experience on both phases of the search process. 35 students from 2 schools for Dutch pre-university education were observed while performing 3 search tasks. The results indicate that subjects with WWW-experience are more proficient in locating Web sites than are novice WWW-users. The observed differences were ascribed to the experts' superior skills in operating Web search engines. However, on tasks that required subjects to locate information on specific Web sites, the performance of experienced and novice users was equivalent - a result that is in line with hypertext research. Based on these findings, implications for training and supporting students in searching for information on the WWW are identified. Finally, the role of the subjects' level of domain expertise is discussed and directions for future research are proposed
  10. Agata, T.: ¬A measure for evaluating search engines on the World Wide Web : retrieval test with ESL (Expected Search Length) (1997) 0.01 
    0.007665664 = product of:
  0.07282381 = sum of:
    0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036411904 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
    0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036411904 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
  11. Hawking, D.; Craswell, N.: ¬The very large collection and Web tracks (2005) 0.01 
    0.007665664 = product of:
  0.07282381 = sum of:
    0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036411904 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
    0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036411904 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
  12. TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval (2005) 0.01 
    0.007572396 = product of:
  0.04795851 = sum of:
    0.013139015 = weight(_text_:web in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013139015 = score(doc=636,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.15613155 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.013139015 = weight(_text_:web in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013139015 = score(doc=636,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.15613155 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.021680482 = product of:
      0.043360963 = sum of:
        0.043360963 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043360963 = score(doc=636,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16918544 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.25629252 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    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.
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval / Textverarbeitung / Aufsatzsammlung (BVB)
    Subject
    Information Retrieval / Textverarbeitung / Aufsatzsammlung (BVB)
  13. Palmquist, R.A.; Kim, K.-S.: Cognitive style and on-line database search experience as predictors of Web search performance (2000) 0.01 
    0.00663866 = product of:
  0.06306727 = sum of:
    0.031533636 = weight(_text_:web in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031533636 = score(doc=4605,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4605, 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=4605)
    0.031533636 = weight(_text_:web in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031533636 = score(doc=4605,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4605, 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=4605)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    This study sought to investigate the effects of cognitive style (field dependent and field independent) and on-line database search experience (novice and experienced) on the WWW search performance of undergraduate college students (n=48). It also attempted to find user factors that could be used to predict search efficiency. search performance, the dependent variable was defined in 2 ways: (1) time required for retrieving a relevant information item, and (2) the number of nodes traversed for retrieving a relevant information item. the search tasks required were carried out on a University Web site, and included a factual task and a topical search task of interest to the participant. Results indicated that while cognitive style (FD/FI) significantly influenced the search performance of novice searchers, the influence was greatly reduced in those searchers who had on-line database search experience. Based on the findings, suggestions for possible changes to the design of the current Web interface and to user training programs are provided
  14. Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008) 0.01 
    0.00663866 = product of:
  0.06306727 = sum of:
    0.031533636 = weight(_text_:web in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031533636 = score(doc=2342,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 2342, 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=2342)
    0.031533636 = weight(_text_:web in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031533636 = score(doc=2342,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 2342, 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=2342)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    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.
  15. Wolff, C.: Leistungsvergleich der Retrievaloberflächen zwischen Web und klassischen Expertensystemen (2001) 0.01 
    0.0063238507 = product of:
  0.06007658 = sum of:
    0.03003829 = weight(_text_:web in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03003829 = score(doc=5870,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5870, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5870)
    0.03003829 = weight(_text_:web in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03003829 = score(doc=5870,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 5870, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5870)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Die meisten Web-Auftritte der Hosts waren bisher für den Retrieval-Laien gedacht. Im Hintergrund steht dabei das Ziel: mehr Nutzung durch einfacheres Retrieval. Dieser Ansatz steht aber im Konflikt mit der wachsenden Datenmenge und Dokumentgröße, die eigentlich ein immer ausgefeilteres Retrieval verlangen. Häufig wird von Information Professionals die Kritik geäußert, dass die Webanwendungen einen Verlust an Relevanz bringen. Wie weit der Nutzer tatsächlich einen Kompromiss zwischen Relevanz und Vollständigkeit eingehen muss, soll in diesem Beitrag anhand verschiedener Host-Rechner quantifiziert werden
  16. Mansourian, Y.; Ford, N.: Search persistence and failure on the web : a "bounded rationality" and "satisficing" analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.0062589888 = product of:
  0.059460394 = sum of:
    0.029730197 = weight(_text_:web in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029730197 = score(doc=841,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
    0.029730197 = weight(_text_:web in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029730197 = score(doc=841,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to examine our current knowledge of how searchers perceive and react to the possibility of missing potentially important information whilst searching the web is limited. The study reported here seeks to investigate such perceptions and reactions, and to explore the extent to which Simon's "bounded rationality" theory is useful in illuminating these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Totally 37 academic staff, research staff and research students in three university departments were interviewed about their web searching. The open-ended, semi-structured interviews were inductively analysed. Emergence of the concept of "good enough" searching prompted a further analysis to explore the extent to which the data could be interpreted in terms of Simon's concepts of "bounded rationality" and "satisficing". Findings - The results indicate that the risk of missing potentially important information was a matter of concern to the interviewees. Their estimations of the likely extent and importance of missed information affected decisions by individuals as to when to stop searching - decisions based on very different criteria, which map well onto Simon's concepts. On the basis of the interview data, the authors propose tentative categorizations of perceptions of the risk of missing information including "inconsequential" "tolerable" "damaging" and "disastrous" and search strategies including "perfunctory" "minimalist" "nervous" and "extensive". It is concluded that there is at least a prima facie case for bounded rationality and satisficing being considered as potentially useful concepts in our quest better to understand aspects of human information behaviour. Research limitations/implications - Although the findings are based on a relatively small sample and an exploratory qualitative analysis, it is argued that the study raises a number of interesting questions, and has implications for both the development of theory and practice in the areas of web searching and information literacy. Originality/value - The paper focuses on an aspect of web searching which has not to date been well explored. Whilst research has done much to illuminate searchers' perceptions of what they find on the web, we know relatively little of their perceptions of, and reactions to information that they fail to find. The study reported here provides some tentative models, based on empirical evidence, of these phenomena.
  17. Ravana, S.D.; Taheri, M.S.; Rajagopal, P.: Document-based approach to improve the accuracy of pairwise comparison in evaluating information retrieval systems (2015) 0.01 
    0.006170121 = product of:
  0.039077435 = sum of:
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2587, 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=2587)
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2587, 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=2587)
    0.008734181 = product of:
      0.017468361 = sum of:
        0.017468361 = weight(_text_:22 in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017468361 = score(doc=2587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2587, 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=2587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a method to have more accurate results in comparing performance of the paired information retrieval (IR) systems with reference to the current method, which is based on the mean effectiveness scores of the systems across a set of identified topics/queries. Design/methodology/approach Based on the proposed approach, instead of the classic method of using a set of topic scores, the documents level scores are considered as the evaluation unit. These document scores are the defined document's weight, which play the role of the mean average precision (MAP) score of the systems as a significance test's statics. The experiments were conducted using the TREC 9 Web track collection. Findings The p-values generated through the two types of significance tests, namely the Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney show that by using the document level scores as an evaluation unit, the difference between IR systems is more significant compared with utilizing topic scores. Originality/value Utilizing a suitable test collection is a primary prerequisite for IR systems comparative evaluation. However, in addition to reusable test collections, having an accurate statistical testing is a necessity for these evaluations. The findings of this study will assist IR researchers to evaluate their retrieval systems and algorithms more accurately.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  18. 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) 0.01 
    0.0058861943 = product of:
  0.037279233 = sum of:
    0.0085823685 = weight(_text_:web in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0085823685 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.0085823685 = weight(_text_:web in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0085823685 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.020114496 = weight(_text_:suche in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020114496 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    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
    "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.
  19. Reichert, S.; Mayr, P.: Untersuchung von Relevanzeigenschaften in einem kontrollierten Eyetracking-Experiment (2012) 0.01 
    0.0055947695 = product of:
  0.05315031 = sum of:
    0.042669293 = weight(_text_:suche in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042669293 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3312015 = fieldWeight in 328, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=328)
    0.010481017 = product of:
      0.020962033 = sum of:
        0.020962033 = weight(_text_:22 in 328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020962033 = score(doc=328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 328, 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=328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel wird ein Eyetracking-Experiment beschrieben, bei dem untersucht wurde, wann und auf Basis welcher Informationen Relevanzentscheidungen bei der themenbezogenen Dokumentenbewertung fallen und welche Faktoren auf die Relevanzentscheidung einwirken. Nach einer kurzen Einführung werden relevante Studien aufgeführt, in denen Eyetracking als Untersuchungsmethode für Interaktionsverhalten mit Ergebnislisten (Information Seeking Behavior) verwendet wurde. Nutzerverhalten wird hierbei vor allem durch unterschiedliche Aufgaben-Typen, dargestellte Informationen und durch das Ranking eines Ergebnisses beeinflusst. Durch EyetrackingUntersuchungen lassen sich Nutzer außerdem in verschiedene Klassen von Bewertungs- und Lesetypen einordnen. Diese Informationen können als implizites Feedback genutzt werden, um so die Suche zu personalisieren und um die Relevanz von Suchergebnissen ohne aktives Zutun des Users zu erhöhen. In einem explorativen Eyetracking-Experiment mit 12 Studenten der Hochschule Darmstadt werden anhand der Länge der Gesamtbewertung, Anzahl der Fixationen, Anzahl der besuchten Metadatenelemente und Länge des Scanpfades zwei typische Bewertungstypen identifiziert. Das Metadatenfeld Abstract wird im Experiment zuverlässig als wichtigste Dokumenteigenschaft für die Zuordnung von Relevanz ermittelt.
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:25:54
  20. Schaer, P.; Mayr, P.; Sünkler, S.; Lewandowski, D.: How relevant is the long tail? : a relevance assessment study on million short (2016) 0.01 
    0.0055322167 = product of:
  0.05255606 = sum of:
    0.02627803 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02627803 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
    0.02627803 = weight(_text_:web in 3144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02627803 = score(doc=3144,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3144, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3144)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Users of web search engines are known to mostly focus on the top ranked results of the search engine result page. While many studies support this well known information seeking pattern only few studies concentrate on the question what users are missing by neglecting lower ranked results. To learn more about the relevance distributions in the so-called long tail we conducted a relevance assessment study with the Million Short long-tail web search engine. While we see a clear difference in the content between the head and the tail of the search engine result list we see no statistical significant differences in the binary relevance judgments and weak significant differences when using graded relevance. The tail contains different but still valuable results. We argue that the long tail can be a rich source for the diversification of web search engine result lists but it needs more evaluation to clearly describe the differences.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 69
  • d 10
  • chi 1
  • f 1
  • ja 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 71
  • m 7
  • s 6
  • r 2
  • el 1
  • p 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications