Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Losee, R.M."
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  1. Losee, R.M.; Church Jr., L.: Are two document clusters better than one? : the cluster performance question for information retrieval (2005) 0.01 
    0.008009522 = product of:
  0.05606665 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 3270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=3270,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3270, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3270)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=3270,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 3270, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3270)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    When do information retrieval systems using two document clusters provide better retrieval performance than systems using no clustering? We answer this question for one set of assumptions and suggest how this may be studied with other assumptions. The "Cluster Hypothesis" asks an empirical question about the relationships between documents and user-supplied relevance judgments, while the "Cluster Performance Question" proposed here focuses an the when and why of information retrieval or digital library performance for clustered and unclustered text databases. This may be generalized to study the relative performance of m versus n clusters.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.106-108
  2. Spink, A.; Losee, R.M.: Feedback in information retrieval (1996) 0.01 
    0.00683917 = product of:
  0.04787419 = sum of:
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 7441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=7441,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 7441, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7441)
    0.033893548 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 7441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033893548 = score(doc=7441,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 7441, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7441)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    State of the art review of the mechanisms of feedback in information retrieval (IR) in terms of feedback concepts and models in cybernetics and social sciences. Critically evaluates feedback research based on the traditional IR models and comparing the different approaches to automatic relevance feedback techniques, and feedback research within the framework of interactive IR models. Calls for an extension of the concept of feedback beyond relevance feedback to interactive feedback. Cites specific examples of feedback models used within IR research and presents 6 challenges to future research
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 31(1996), S.33-78

Authors

Years