Search (124 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  1. Agata, T.: ¬A measure for evaluating search engines on the World Wide Web : retrieval test with ESL (Expected Search Length) (1997) 0.09 
    0.091985725 = product of:
  0.2299643 = sum of:
    0.024307044 = product of:
      0.04861409 = sum of:
        0.04861409 = weight(_text_:web in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04861409 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06743487 = weight(_text_:world in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06743487 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.50960356 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
    0.089608304 = weight(_text_:wide in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.089608304 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.5874411 = fieldWeight in 3892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3892)
    0.04861409 = weight(_text_:web in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04861409 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
  2. 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) 0.06 
    0.06401996 = product of:
  0.1600499 = sum of:
    0.027176104 = product of:
      0.05435221 = sum of:
        0.05435221 = weight(_text_:web in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05435221 = score(doc=4598,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033717435 = weight(_text_:world in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033717435 = score(doc=4598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
    0.044804152 = weight(_text_:wide in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044804152 = score(doc=4598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
    0.05435221 = weight(_text_:web in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05435221 = score(doc=4598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
    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
  3. Wu, C.-J.: Experiments on using the Dublin Core to reduce the retrieval error ratio (1998) 0.05 
    0.053658344 = product of:
  0.13414586 = sum of:
    0.0141791105 = product of:
      0.028358221 = sum of:
        0.028358221 = weight(_text_:web in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028358221 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.039337005 = weight(_text_:world in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039337005 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
    0.052271515 = weight(_text_:wide in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052271515 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
    0.028358221 = weight(_text_:web in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028358221 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
    Abstract
    In order to test the power of metadata on information retrieval, an experiment was designed and conducted on a group of 7 graduate students using the Dublin Core as the cataloguing metadata. Results show that, on average, the retrieval error rate is only 2.9 per cent for the MES system (http://140.136.85.194), which utilizes the Dublin Core to describe the documents on the World Wide Web, in contrast to 20.7 per cent for the 7 famous search engines including HOTBOT, GAIS, LYCOS, EXCITE, INFOSEEK, YAHOO, and OCTOPUS. The very low error rate indicates that the users can use the information of the Dublin Core to decide whether to retrieve the documents or not
  4. Khan, K.; Locatis, C.: Searching through cyberspace : the effects of link display and link density on information retrieval from hypertext on the World Wide Web (1998) 0.05 
    0.045992862 = product of:
  0.11498215 = sum of:
    0.012153522 = product of:
      0.024307044 = sum of:
        0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024307044 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 446, 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=446)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033717435 = weight(_text_:world in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033717435 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=446)
    0.044804152 = weight(_text_:wide in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044804152 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=446)
    0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024307044 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 446, 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=446)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
  5. Griesbaum, J.: Evaluierung hybrider Suchsysteme im WWW (2000) 0.05 
    0.045992862 = product of:
  0.11498215 = sum of:
    0.012153522 = product of:
      0.024307044 = sum of:
        0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024307044 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2482, 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=2482)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033717435 = weight(_text_:world in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033717435 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
    0.044804152 = weight(_text_:wide in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044804152 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
    0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024307044 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2482, 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=2482)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
    Abstract
    Der Ausgangspunkt dieser Arbeit ist die Suchproblematik im World Wide Web. Suchmaschinen sind einerseits unverzichtbar für erfolgreiches Information Retrieval, andererseits wird ihnen eine mäßige Leistungsfähigkeit vorgeworfen. Das Thema dieser Arbeit ist die Untersuchung der Retrievaleffektivität deutschsprachiger Suchmaschinen. Es soll festgestellt werden, welche Retrievaleffektivität Nutzer derzeit erwarten können. Ein Ansatz, um die Retrievaleffektivität von Suchmaschinen zu erhöhen besteht darin, redaktionell von Menschen erstellte und automatisch generierte Suchergebnisse in einer Trefferliste zu vermengen. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, die Retrievaleffektivität solcher hybrider Systeme im Vergleich zu rein roboterbasierten Suchmaschinen zu evaluieren. Zunächst werden hierzu die grundlegenden Problembereiche bei der Evaluation von Retrievalsystemen analysiert. In Anlehnung an die von Tague-Sutcliff vorgeschlagene Methodik wird unter Beachtung der webspezifischen Besonderheiten eine mögliche Vorgehensweise erschlossen. Darauf aufbauend wird das konkrete Setting für die Durchführung der Evaluation erarbeitet und ein Retrievaleffektivitätstest bei den Suchmaschinen Lycos.de, AItaVista.de und QualiGo durchgeführt.
  6. Kantor, P.; Kim, M.H.; Ibraev, U.; Atasoy, K.: Estimating the number of relevant documents in enormous collections (1999) 0.04 
    0.03832739 = product of:
  0.09581847 = sum of:
    0.010127936 = product of:
      0.020255871 = sum of:
        0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020255871 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 6690, 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=6690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.028097862 = weight(_text_:world in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028097862 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
    0.037336797 = weight(_text_:wide in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037336797 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
    0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020255871 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 6690, 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=6690)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
    Abstract
    In assessing information retrieval systems, it is important to know not only the precision of the retrieved set, but also to compare the number of retrieved relevant items to the total number of relevant items. For large collections, such as the TREC test collections, or the World Wide Web, it is not possible to enumerate the entire set of relevant documents. If the retrieved documents are evaluated, a variant of the statistical "capture-recapture" method can be used to estimate the total number of relevant documents, providing the several retrieval systems used are sufficiently independent. We show that the underlying signal detection model supporting such an analysis can be extended in two ways. First, assuming that there are two distinct performance characteristics (corresponding to the chance of retrieving a relevant, and retrieving a given non-relevant document), we show that if there are three or more independent systems available it is possible to estimate the number of relevant documents without actually having to decide whether each individual document is relevant. We report applications of this 3-system method to the TREC data, leading to the conclusion that the independence assumptions are not satisfied. We then extend the model to a multi-system, multi-problem model, and show that it is possible to include statistical dependencies of all orders in the model, and determine the number of relevant documents for each of the problems in the set. Application to the TREC setting will be presented
  7. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.K.: ¬The Text REtrieval Conference (2005) 0.04 
    0.036282096 = product of:
  0.07256419 = sum of:
    0.0070895553 = product of:
      0.0141791105 = sum of:
        0.0141791105 = weight(_text_:web in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0141791105 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.019668503 = weight(_text_:world in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019668503 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.14863437 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.026135758 = weight(_text_:wide in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026135758 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.171337 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.0141791105 = weight(_text_:web in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0141791105 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.005491262 = product of:
      0.016473785 = sum of:
        0.016473785 = weight(_text_:29 in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016473785 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.13602862 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(5/10)
    Abstract
    Text retrieval technology targets a problem that is all too familiar: finding relevant information in large stores of electronic documents. The problem is an old one, with the first research conference devoted to the subject held in 1958 [11]. Since then the problem has continued to grow as more information is created in electronic form and more people gain electronic access. The advent of the World Wide Web, where anyone can publish so everyone must search, is a graphic illustration of the need for effective retrieval technology. The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a workshop series designed to build the infrastructure necessary for the large-scale evaluation of text retrieval technology, thereby accelerating its transfer into the commercial sector. The series is sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Defense. At the time of this writing, there have been twelve TREC workshops and preparations for the thirteenth workshop are under way. Participants in the workshops have been drawn from the academic, commercial, and government sectors, and have included representatives from more than twenty different countries. These collective efforts have accomplished a great deal: a variety of large test collections have been built for both traditional ad hoc retrieval and related tasks such as cross-language retrieval, speech retrieval, and question answering; retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled; and many commercial retrieval systems now contain technology first developed in TREC.
    Date
    29. 3.1996 18:16:49
  8. Hawking, D.; Craswell, N.: ¬The very large collection and Web tracks (2005) 0.03 
    0.027524497 = product of:
  0.09174832 = sum of:
    0.024307044 = product of:
      0.04861409 = sum of:
        0.04861409 = weight(_text_:web in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04861409 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04861409 = weight(_text_:web in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04861409 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
    0.018827185 = product of:
      0.05648155 = sum of:
        0.05648155 = weight(_text_:29 in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05648155 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Date
    29. 3.1996 18:16:49
  9. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.02 
    0.024356779 = product of:
  0.08118926 = sum of:
    0.022916902 = product of:
      0.045833804 = sum of:
        0.045833804 = weight(_text_:web in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045833804 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.045833804 = weight(_text_:web in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045833804 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
    0.012438547 = product of:
      0.03731564 = sum of:
        0.03731564 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03731564 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12055935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    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
  10. Breuer, T.; Tavakolpoursaleh, N.; Schaer, P.; Hienert, D.; Schaible, J.; Castro, L.J.: Online Information Retrieval Evaluation using the STELLA Framework (2022) 0.02 
    0.021053402 = product of:
  0.070178 = sum of:
    0.012153522 = product of:
      0.024307044 = sum of:
        0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024307044 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 640, 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=640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.033717435 = weight(_text_:world in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033717435 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
    0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024307044 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 640, 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=640)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Involving users in early phases of software development has become a common strategy as it enables developers to consider user needs from the beginning. Once a system is in production, new opportunities to observe, evaluate and learn from users emerge as more information becomes available. Gathering information from users to continuously evaluate their behavior is a common practice for commercial software, while the Cranfield paradigm remains the preferred option for Information Retrieval (IR) and recommendation systems in the academic world. Here we introduce the Infrastructures for Living Labs STELLA project which aims to create an evaluation infrastructure allowing experimental systems to run along production web-based academic search systems with real users. STELLA combines user interactions and log files analyses to enable large-scale A/B experiments for academic search.
  11. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000) 0.02 
    0.02062521 = product of:
  0.10312605 = sum of:
    0.03437535 = product of:
      0.0687507 = sum of:
        0.0687507 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0687507 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0687507 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0687507 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    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
  12. Clarke, S.J.; Willett, P.: Estimating the recall performance of Web search engines (1997) 0.02 
    0.019445635 = product of:
  0.09722818 = sum of:
    0.032409392 = product of:
      0.064818785 = sum of:
        0.064818785 = weight(_text_:web in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064818785 = score(doc=760,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.064818785 = weight(_text_:web in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064818785 = score(doc=760,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    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
  13. MacFarlane, A.: Evaluation of web search for the information practitioner (2007) 0.02 
    0.01929312 = product of:
  0.0964656 = sum of:
    0.0321552 = product of:
      0.0643104 = sum of:
        0.0643104 = weight(_text_:web in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0643104 = score(doc=817,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0643104 = weight(_text_:web in 817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0643104 = score(doc=817,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    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.
  14. Sünkler, S.: Prototypische Entwicklung einer Software für die Erfassung und Analyse explorativer Suchen in Verbindung mit Tests zur Retrievaleffektivität (2012) 0.02 
    0.018909471 = product of:
  0.09454735 = sum of:
    0.06471471 = weight(_text_:gestaltung in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06471471 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2008246 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.3222449 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
    0.029832644 = product of:
      0.05966529 = sum of:
        0.05966529 = weight(_text_:seite in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05966529 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19283076 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.3094179 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Gegenstand dieser Arbeit ist die Entwicklung eines funktionalen Prototyps einer Webanwendung für die Verknüpfung der Evaluierung von explorativen Suchen in Verbindung mit der Durchführung klassisches Retrievaltests. Als Grundlage für die Programmierung des Prototyps werden benutzerorientierte und systemorientierte Evalulierungsmethoden für Suchmaschinen analysiert und in einem theoretischen Modell zur Untersuchung von Informationssysteme und Suchmaschinen kombiniert. Bei der Gestaltung des Modells und des Prototyps wird gezeigt, wie sich aufgezeichnete Aktionsdaten praktisch für die Suchmaschinenevaluierung verwenden lassen, um auf der einen Seite eine Datengrundlage für Retrievaltests zu gewinnen und andererseits, um für die Auswertung von Relevanzbewertungen auch das implizierte Feedback durch Handlungen der Anwender zu berücksichtigen. Retrievaltests sind das gängige und erprobte Mittel zur Messung der Retrievaleffektiviät von Informationssystemen und Suchmaschinen, verzichten aber auf eine Berücksichtigung des tatsächlichen Nutzerverhaltens. Eine Methode für die Erfassung der Interaktionen von Suchmaschinennutzern sind protokollbasierte Tests, mit denen sich Logdateien über Benutzer einer Anwendung generieren lassen. Die im Rahmen der Arbeit umgesetzte Software bietet einen Ansatz, Retrievaltests auf Basis protokollierter Nutzerdaten in Verbindung mit kontrollierten Suchaufgaben, durchzuführen. Das Ergebnis dieser Arbeit ist ein fertiger funktionaler Prototyp, der in seinem Umfang bereits innerhalb von Suchmaschinenstudien nutzbar ist.
  15. Pemberton, J.K.; Ojala, M.; Garman, N.: Head to head : searching the Web versus traditional services (1998) 0.02 
    0.018315792 = product of:
  0.061052635 = sum of:
    0.016204696 = product of:
      0.032409392 = sum of:
        0.032409392 = weight(_text_:web in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032409392 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032409392 = weight(_text_:web in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032409392 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
    0.012438547 = product of:
      0.03731564 = sum of:
        0.03731564 = weight(_text_:22 in 3572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03731564 = score(doc=3572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12055935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Source
    Online. 22(1998) no.3, S.24-26,28
  16. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.02 
    0.018315792 = product of:
  0.061052635 = sum of:
    0.016204696 = product of:
      0.032409392 = sum of:
        0.032409392 = weight(_text_:web in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032409392 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032409392 = weight(_text_:web in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032409392 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
    0.012438547 = product of:
      0.03731564 = sum of:
        0.03731564 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03731564 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12055935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    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.
  17. 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) 0.02 
    0.016138755 = product of:
  0.053795844 = sum of:
    0.036608167 = weight(_text_:gestaltung in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036608167 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2008246 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.18228926 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.8332562 = idf(docFreq=351, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.0057292255 = product of:
      0.011458451 = sum of:
        0.011458451 = weight(_text_:web in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011458451 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011458451 = weight(_text_:web in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011458451 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    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
    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.
  18. Harter, S.P.: Variations in relevance assessments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness (1996) 0.01 
    0.013086932 = product of:
  0.06543466 = sum of:
    0.028097862 = weight(_text_:world in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028097862 = score(doc=3004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1323281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
    0.037336797 = weight(_text_:wide in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037336797 = score(doc=3004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this article is to bring attention to the problem of variations in relevance assessments and the effects that these may have on measures of retrieval effectiveness. Through an analytical review of the literature, I show that despite known wide variations in relevance assessments in experimental test collections, their effects on the measurement of retrieval performance are almost completely unstudied. I will further argue that what we know about tha many variables that have been found to affect relevance assessments under experimental conditions, as well as our new understanding of psychological, situational, user-based relevance, point to a single conclusion. We can no longer rest the evaluation of information retrieval systems on the assumption that such variations do not significantly affect the measurement of information retrieval performance. A series of thourough, rigorous, and extensive tests is needed, of precisely how, and under what conditions, variations in relevance assessments do, and do not, affect measures of retrieval performance. We need to develop approaches to evaluation that are sensitive to these variations and to human factors and individual differences more generally. Our approaches to evaluation must reflect the real world of real users
  19. Palmquist, R.A.; Kim, K.-S.: Cognitive style and on-line database search experience as predictors of Web search performance (2000) 0.01 
    0.012630313 = product of:
  0.06315156 = sum of:
    0.02105052 = product of:
      0.04210104 = sum of:
        0.04210104 = weight(_text_:web in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04210104 = score(doc=4605,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04210104 = weight(_text_:web in 4605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04210104 = score(doc=4605,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    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
  20. Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008) 0.01 
    0.012630313 = product of:
  0.06315156 = sum of:
    0.02105052 = product of:
      0.04210104 = sum of:
        0.04210104 = weight(_text_:web in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04210104 = score(doc=2342,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04210104 = weight(_text_:web in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04210104 = score(doc=2342,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 112
  • s 7
  • m 5
  • el 3
  • x 2
  • p 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications