Search (133 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalstudien"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval (2005) 0.04 
    0.039899282 = product of:
  0.13964748 = sum of:
    0.015099285 = weight(_text_:web in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015099285 = score(doc=636,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.009769271 = weight(_text_:information in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009769271 = score(doc=636,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18779588 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.044308405 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044308405 = score(doc=636,freq=70.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.49430186 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          8.3666 = tf(freq=70.0), with freq of:
            70.0 = termFreq=70.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.07047053 = weight(_text_:kongress in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07047053 = score(doc=636,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19442701 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36245233 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), a yearly workshop hosted by the US government's National Institute of Standards and Technology, provides the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. With the goal of accelerating research in this area, TREC created the first large test collections of full-text documents and standardized retrieval evaluation. The impact has been significant; since TREC's beginning in 1992, retrieval effectiveness has approximately doubled. TREC has built a variety of large test collections, including collections for such specialized retrieval tasks as cross-language retrieval and retrieval of speech. Moreover, TREC has accelerated the transfer of research ideas into commercial systems, as demonstrated in the number of retrieval techniques developed in TREC that are now used in Web search engines. This book provides a comprehensive review of TREC research, summarizing the variety of TREC results, documenting the best practices in experimental information retrieval, and suggesting areas for further research. The first part of the book describes TREC's history, test collections, and retrieval methodology. Next, the book provides "track" reports -- describing the evaluations of specific tasks, including routing and filtering, interactive retrieval, and retrieving noisy text. The final part of the book offers perspectives on TREC from such participants as Microsoft Research, University of Massachusetts, Cornell University, University of Waterloo, City University of New York, and IBM. The book will be of interest to researchers in information retrieval and related technologies, including natural language processing.
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: 1. The Text REtrieval Conference - Ellen M. Voorhees and Donna K. Harman 2. The TREC Test Collections - Donna K. Harman 3. Retrieval System Evaluation - Chris Buckley and Ellen M. Voorhees 4. The TREC Ad Hoc Experiments - Donna K. Harman 5. Routing and Filtering - Stephen Robertson and Jamie Callan 6. The TREC Interactive Tracks: Putting the User into Search - Susan T. Dumais and Nicholas J. Belkin 7. Beyond English - Donna K. Harman 8. Retrieving Noisy Text - Ellen M. Voorhees and John S. Garofolo 9.The Very Large Collection and Web Tracks - David Hawking and Nick Craswell 10. Question Answering in TREC - Ellen M. Voorhees 11. The University of Massachusetts and a Dozen TRECs - James Allan, W. Bruce Croft and Jamie Callan 12. How Okapi Came to TREC - Stephen Robertson 13. The SMART Project at TREC - Chris Buckley 14. Ten Years of Ad Hoc Retrieval at TREC Using PIRCS - Kui-Lam Kwok 15. MultiText Experiments for TREC - Gordon V. Cormack, Charles L. A. Clarke, Christopher R. Palmer and Thomas R. Lynam 16. A Language-Modeling Approach to TREC - Djoerd Hiemstra and Wessel Kraaij 17. BM Research Activities at TREC - Eric W. Brown, David Carmel, Martin Franz, Abraham Ittycheriah, Tapas Kanungo, Yoelle Maarek, J. Scott McCarley, Robert L. Mack, John M. Prager, John R. Smith, Aya Soffer, Jason Y. Zien and Alan D. Marwick Epilogue: Metareflections on TREC - Karen Sparck Jones
    Footnote
    Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.6, S.910-911 (J.L. Vicedo u. J. Gomez): "The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is a yearly workshop hosted by the U.S. government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that fosters and supports research in information retrieval as well as speeding the transfer of technology between research labs and industry. Since 1992, TREC has provided the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluations of different text retrieval methodologies. TREC impact has been very important and its success has been mainly supported by its continuous adaptation to the emerging information retrieval needs. Not in vain, TREC has built evaluation benchmarks for more than 20 different retrieval problems such as Web retrieval, speech retrieval, or question-answering. The large and intense trajectory of annual TREC conferences has resulted in an immense bulk of documents reflecting the different eval uation and research efforts developed. This situation makes it difficult sometimes to observe clearly how research in information retrieval (IR) has evolved over the course of TREC. TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval succeeds in organizing and condensing all this research into a manageable volume that describes TREC history and summarizes the main lessons learned. The book is organized into three parts. The first part is devoted to the description of TREC's origin and history, the test collections, and the evaluation methodology developed. The second part describes a selection of the major evaluation exercises (tracks), and the third part contains contributions from research groups that had a large and remarkable participation in TREC. Finally, Karen Spark Jones, one of the main promoters of research in IR, closes the book with an epilogue that analyzes the impact of TREC on this research field.
    ... TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval is a reliable and comprehensive review of the TREC program and has been adopted by NIST as the official history of TREC (see http://trec.nist.gov). We were favorably surprised by the book. Well structured and written, chapters are self-contained and the existence of references to specialized and more detailed publications is continuous, which makes it easier to expand into the different aspects analyzed in the text. This book succeeds in compiling TREC evolution from its inception in 1992 to 2003 in an adequate and manageable volume. Thanks to the impressive effort performed by the authors and their experience in the field, it can satiate the interests of a great variety of readers. While expert researchers in the IR field and IR-related industrial companies can use it as a reference manual, it seems especially useful for students and non-expert readers willing to approach this research area. Like NIST, we would recommend this reading to anyone who may be interested in textual information retrieval."
    LCSH
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Congresses
    Text REtrieval Conference
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval / Textverarbeitung / Aufsatzsammlung (BVB)
    Kongress / Information Retrieval / Kongress (GBV)
    Subject
    Information Retrieval / Textverarbeitung / Aufsatzsammlung (BVB)
    Kongress / Information Retrieval / Kongress (GBV)
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Congresses
    Text REtrieval Conference
  2. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.03 
    0.026884075 = product of:
  0.09409426 = sum of:
    0.027896244 = weight(_text_:web in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027896244 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.013980643 = weight(_text_:information in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013980643 = score(doc=4049,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 4049, 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=4049)
    0.041510954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041510954 = score(doc=4049,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46309367 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    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.
    Imprint
    Gaithersburg, MD : National Institute of Standards / Information Technology Laboratory
  3. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.K.: ¬The Text REtrieval Conference (2005) 0.02 
    0.02436916 = product of:
  0.085292056 = sum of:
    0.022496238 = weight(_text_:wide in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022496238 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.012204607 = weight(_text_:web in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012204607 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.00865008 = weight(_text_:information in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00865008 = score(doc=5082,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16628155 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=5082,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5082, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5082)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    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.
    This book chronicles the evolution of retrieval systems over the course of TREC. To be sure, there has already been a wealth of information written about TREC. Each conference has produced a proceedings containing general overviews of the various tasks, papers written by the individual participants, and evaluation results.1 Reports on expanded versions of TREC experiments frequently appear in the wider information retrieval literature. There also have been special issues of journals devoted to particular TRECs [3; 13] and particular TREC tasks [6; 4]. No single volume could hope to be a comprehensive record of all TREC-related research. Instead, this book looks to distill the overabundance of detail into a manageable whole that summarizes the main lessons learned from TREC. The book consists of three main parts. The first part contains introductory and descriptive chapters on TREC's history, the major products of TREC (the test collections), and the retrieval evaluation methodology. Part II includes chapters describing the major TREC ''tracks,'' evaluations of special subtopics such as cross-language retrieval and question answering. Part III contains contributions from research groups that have participated in TREC. The epilogue to the book is written by Karen Sparck Jones, who reflects on the impact TREC has had on the information retrieval field. The structure of this introductory chapter is similar to that of the book as a whole. The chapter begins with a short history of TREC; expanded descriptions of specific aspects of the history are included in subsequent chapters to make those chapters self-contained. Section 1.2 describes TREC's track structure, which has been responsible for the growth of TREC and allows TREC to adapt to changing needs. The final section lists both the major accomplishments of TREC and some remaining challenges.
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  4. Griesbaum, J.: Evaluierung hybrider Suchsysteme im WWW (2000) 0.02 
    0.02386164 = product of:
  0.08351573 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2482)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    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.
  5. 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) 0.02 
    0.021466525 = product of:
  0.10017712 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=4598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.046783425 = weight(_text_:web in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046783425 = score(doc=4598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.01482871 = weight(_text_:information in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01482871 = score(doc=4598,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 4598, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4598)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.6, S.576-581
  6. Mandl, T.: Web- und Multimedia-Dokumente : Neuere Entwicklungen bei der Evaluierung von Information Retrieval Systemen (2003) 0.02 
    0.021329055 = product of:
  0.099535584 = sum of:
    0.027896244 = weight(_text_:web in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027896244 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.01804893 = weight(_text_:information in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01804893 = score(doc=1734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
    0.05359041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05359041 = score(doc=1734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.59785134 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Die Menge an Daten im Internet steigt weiter rapide an. Damit wächst auch der Bedarf an qualitativ hochwertigen Information Retrieval Diensten zur Orientierung und problemorientierten Suche. Die Entscheidung für die Benutzung oder Beschaffung von Information Retrieval Software erfordert aussagekräftige Evaluierungsergebnisse. Dieser Beitrag stellt neuere Entwicklungen bei der Evaluierung von Information Retrieval Systemen vor und zeigt den Trend zu Spezialisierung und Diversifizierung von Evaluierungsstudien, die den Realitätsgrad derErgebnisse erhöhen. DerSchwerpunkt liegt auf dem Retrieval von Fachtexten, Internet-Seiten und Multimedia-Objekten.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 54(2003) H.4, S.203-210
  7. 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 
    0.019478485 = product of:
  0.0681747 = sum of:
    0.009862811 = weight(_text_:web in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009862811 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.01560879 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01560879 = score(doc=5973,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.12829782 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.009885807 = weight(_text_:information in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009885807 = score(doc=5973,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.03281729 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03281729 = score(doc=5973,freq=60.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36610767 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          7.745967 = tf(freq=60.0), with freq of:
            60.0 = termFreq=60.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Information Retrieval hat sich zu einer Schlüsseltechnologie in der Wissensgesellschaft entwickelt. Die Anzahl der täglichen Anfragen an Internet-Suchmaschinen bildet nur einen Indikator für die große Bedeutung dieses Themas. Der Sammelbandband informiert über Themen wie Information Retrieval-Grundlagen, Retrieval Systeme, Digitale Bibliotheken, Evaluierung und Multilinguale Systeme, beschreibt Anwendungsszenarien und setzt sich mit neuen Herausforderungen an das Information Retrieval auseinander. Die Beiträge behandeln aktuelle Themen und neue Herausforderungen an das Information Retrieval. Die intensive Beteiligung der Informationswissenschaft der Universität Hildesheim am Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), einer europäischen Evaluierungsinitiative zur Erforschung mehrsprachiger Retrieval Systeme, berührt mehrere der Beiträge. Ebenso spielen Anwendungsszenarien und die Auseinandersetzung mit aktuellen und praktischen Fragestellungen eine große Rolle.
    Content
    Inhalt: Jan-Hendrik Scheufen: RECOIN: Modell offener Schnittstellen für Information-Retrieval-Systeme und -Komponenten Markus Nick, Klaus-Dieter Althoff: Designing Maintainable Experience-based Information Systems Gesine Quint, Steffen Weichert: Die benutzerzentrierte Entwicklung des Produkt- Retrieval-Systems EIKON der Blaupunkt GmbH Claus-Peter Klas, Sascha Kriewel, André Schaefer, Gudrun Fischer: Das DAFFODIL System - Strategische Literaturrecherche in Digitalen Bibliotheken Matthias Meiert: Entwicklung eines Modells zur Integration digitaler Dokumente in die Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim Daniel Harbig, René Schneider: Ontology Learning im Rahmen von MyShelf Michael Kluck, Marco Winter: Topic-Entwicklung und Relevanzbewertung bei GIRT: ein Werkstattbericht Thomas Mandl: Neue Entwicklungen bei den Evaluierungsinitiativen im Information Retrieval Joachim Pfister: Clustering von Patent-Dokumenten am Beispiel der Datenbanken des Fachinformationszentrums Karlsruhe Ralph Kölle, Glenn Langemeier, Wolfgang Semar: Programmieren lernen in kollaborativen Lernumgebungen Olga Tartakovski, Margaryta Shramko: Implementierung eines Werkzeugs zur Sprachidentifikation in mono- und multilingualen Texten Nina Kummer: Indexierungstechniken für das japanische Retrieval Suriya Na Nhongkai, Hans-Joachim Bentz: Bilinguale Suche mittels Konzeptnetzen Robert Strötgen, Thomas Mandl, René Schneider: Entwicklung und Evaluierung eines Question Answering Systems im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) Niels Jensen: Evaluierung von mehrsprachigem Web-Retrieval: Experimente mit dem EuroGOV-Korpus im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 57(2006) H.5, S.290-291 (C. Schindler): "Weniger als ein Jahr nach dem "Vierten Hildesheimer Evaluierungs- und Retrievalworkshop" (HIER 2005) im Juli 2005 ist der dazugehörige Tagungsband erschienen. Eingeladen hatte die Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft um ihre Forschungsergebnisse und die einiger externer Experten zum Thema Information Retrieval einem Fachpublikum zu präsentieren und zur Diskussion zu stellen. Unter dem Titel "Effektive Information Retrieval Verfahren in Theorie und Praxis" sind nahezu sämtliche Beiträge des Workshops in dem nun erschienenen, 15 Beiträge umfassenden Band gesammelt. Mit dem Schwerpunkt Information Retrieval (IR) wird ein Teilgebiet der Informationswissenschaft vorgestellt, das schon immer im Zentrum informationswissenschaftlicher Forschung steht. Ob durch den Leistungsanstieg von Prozessoren und Speichermedien, durch die Verbreitung des Internet über nationale Grenzen hinweg oder durch den stetigen Anstieg der Wissensproduktion, festzuhalten ist, dass in einer zunehmend wechselseitig vernetzten Welt die Orientierung und das Auffinden von Dokumenten in großen Wissensbeständen zu einer zentralen Herausforderung geworden sind. Aktuelle Verfahrensweisen zu diesem Thema, dem Information Retrieval, präsentiert der neue Band anhand von praxisbezogenen Projekten und theoretischen Diskussionen. Das Kernthema Information Retrieval wird in dem Sammelband in die Bereiche Retrieval-Systeme, Digitale Bibliothek, Evaluierung und Multilinguale Systeme untergliedert. Die Artikel der einzelnen Sektionen sind insgesamt recht heterogen und bieten daher keine Überschneidungen inhaltlicher Art. Jedoch ist eine vollkommene thematische Abdeckung der unterschiedlichen Bereiche ebenfalls nicht gegeben, was bei der Präsentation von Forschungsergebnissen eines Institutes und seiner Kooperationspartner auch nur bedingt erwartet werden kann. So lässt sich sowohl in der Gliederung als auch in den einzelnen Beiträgen eine thematische Verdichtung erkennen, die das spezielle Profil und die Besonderheit der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft im Feld des Information Retrieval wiedergibt. Teil davon ist die mehrsprachige und interdisziplinäre Ausrichtung, die die Schnittstellen zwischen Informationswissenschaft, Sprachwissenschaft und Informatik in ihrer praxisbezogenen und internationalen Forschung fokussiert.
    Im ersten Kapitel "Retrieval-Systeme" werden verschiedene Information RetrievalSysteme präsentiert und Verfahren zu deren Gestaltung diskutiert. Jan-Hendrik Scheufen stellt das Meta-Framework RECOIN zur Information Retrieval Forschung vor, das sich durch eine flexible Handhabung unterschiedlichster Applikationen auszeichnet und dadurch eine zentrierte Protokollierung und Steuerung von Retrieval-Prozessen ermöglicht. Dieses Konzept eines offenen, komponentenbasierten Systems wurde in Form eines Plug-Ins für die javabasierte Open-Source-Plattform Eclipse realisiert. Markus Nick und Klaus-Dieter Althoff erläutern in ihrem Beitrag, der übrigens der einzige englischsprachige Text im Buch ist, das Verfahren DILLEBIS zur Erhaltung und Pflege (Maintenance) von erfahrungsbasierten Informationssystemen. Sie bezeichnen dieses Verfahren als Maintainable Experience-based Information System und plädieren für eine Ausrichtung von erfahrungsbasierten Systemen entsprechend diesem Modell. Gesine Quint und Steffen Weichert stellen dagegen in ihrem Beitrag die benutzerzentrierte Entwicklung des Produkt-Retrieval-Systems EIKON vor, das in Kooperation mit der Blaupunkt GmbH realisiert wurde. In einem iterativen Designzyklus erfolgte die Gestaltung von gruppenspezifischen Interaktionsmöglichkeiten für ein Car-Multimedia-Zubehör-System. Im zweiten Kapitel setzen sich mehrere Autoren dezidierter mit dem Anwendungsgebiet "Digitale Bibliothek" auseinander. Claus-Peter Klas, Sascha Kriewel, Andre Schaefer und Gudrun Fischer von der Universität Duisburg-Essen stellen das System DAFFODIL vor, das durch eine Vielzahl an Werkzeugen zur strategischen Unterstützung bei Literaturrecherchen in digitalen Bibliotheken dient. Zusätzlich ermöglicht die Protokollierung sämtlicher Ereignisse den Einsatz des Systems als Evaluationsplattform. Der Aufsatz von Matthias Meiert erläutert die Implementierung von elektronischen Publikationsprozessen an Hochschulen am Beispiel von Abschlussarbeiten des Studienganges Internationales Informationsmanagement der Universität Hildesheim. Neben Rahmenbedingungen werden sowohl der Ist-Zustand als auch der Soll-Zustand des wissenschaftlichen elektronischen Publizierens in Form von gruppenspezifischen Empfehlungen dargestellt. Daniel Harbig und Rene Schneider beschreiben in ihrem Aufsatz zwei Verfahrensweisen zum maschinellen Erlernen von Ontologien, angewandt am virtuellen Bibliotheksregal MyShelf. Nach der Evaluation dieser beiden Ansätze plädieren die Autoren für ein semi-automatisiertes Verfahren zur Erstellung von Ontologien.
    "Evaluierung", das Thema des dritten Kapitels, ist in seiner Breite nicht auf das Information Retrieval beschränkt sondern beinhaltet ebenso einzelne Aspekte der Bereiche Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion sowie des E-Learning. Michael Muck und Marco Winter von der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik sowie dem Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften thematisieren in ihrem Beitrag den Einfluss der Fragestellung (Topic) auf die Bewertung von Relevanz und zeigen Verfahrensweisen für die Topic-Erstellung auf, die beim Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) Anwendung finden. Im darauf folgenden Aufsatz stellt Thomas Mandl verschiedene Evaluierungsinitiativen im Information Retrieval und aktuelle Entwicklungen dar. Joachim Pfister erläutert in seinem Beitrag das automatisierte Gruppieren, das sogenannte Clustering, von Patent-Dokumenten in den Datenbanken des Fachinformationszentrums Karlsruhe und evaluiert unterschiedliche Clusterverfahren auf Basis von Nutzerbewertungen. Ralph Kölle, Glenn Langemeier und Wolfgang Semar widmen sich dem kollaborativen Lernen unter den speziellen Bedingungen des Programmierens. Dabei werden das System VitaminL zur synchronen Bearbeitung von Programmieraufgaben und das Kennzahlensystem K-3 für die Bewertung kollaborativer Zusammenarbeit in einer Lehrveranstaltung angewendet. Der aktuelle Forschungsschwerpunkt der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft zeichnet sich im vierten Kapitel unter dem Thema "Multilinguale Systeme" ab. Hier finden sich die meisten Beiträge des Tagungsbandes wieder. Olga Tartakovski und Margaryta Shramko beschreiben und prüfen das System Langldent, das die Sprache von mono- und multilingualen Texten identifiziert. Die Eigenheiten der japanischen Schriftzeichen stellt Nina Kummer dar und vergleicht experimentell die unterschiedlichen Techniken der Indexierung. Suriya Na Nhongkai und Hans-Joachim Bentz präsentieren und prüfen eine bilinguale Suche auf Basis von Konzeptnetzen, wobei die Konzeptstruktur das verbindende Elemente der beiden Textsammlungen darstellt. Das Entwickeln und Evaluieren eines mehrsprachigen Question-Answering-Systems im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), das die alltagssprachliche Formulierung von konkreten Fragestellungen ermöglicht, wird im Beitrag von Robert Strötgen, Thomas Mandl und Rene Schneider thematisiert. Den Schluss bildet der Aufsatz von Niels Jensen, der ein mehrsprachiges Web-Retrieval-System ebenfalls im Zusammenhang mit dem CLEF anhand des multilingualen EuroGOVKorpus evaluiert.
    Abschließend lässt sich sagen, dass der Tagungsband einen gelungenen Überblick über die Information Retrieval Projekte der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft und ihrer Kooperationspartner gibt. Die einzelnen Beiträge sind sehr anregend und auf einem hohen Niveau angesiedelt. Ein kleines Hindernis für den Leser stellt die inhaltliche und strukturelle Orientierung innerhalb des Bandes dar. Der Bezug der einzelnen Artikel zum Thema des Kapitels wird zwar im Vorwort kurz erläutert. Erschwert wird die Orientierung im Buch jedoch durch fehlende Kapitelüberschriften am Anfang der einzelnen Sektionen. Außerdem ist zu erwähnen, dass einer der Artikel einen anderen Titel als im Inhaltsverzeichnis angekündigt trägt. Sieht der Leser von diesen formalen Mängeln ab, wird er reichlich mit praxisbezogenen und theoretisch fundierten Projektdarstellungen und Forschungsergebnissen belohnt. Dies insbesondere, da nicht nur aktuelle Themen der Informationswissenschaft aufgegriffen, sondern ebenso weiterentwickelt und durch die speziellen interdisziplinären und internationalen Bedingungen in Hildesheim geformt werden. Dabei zeigt sich anhand der verschiedenen Projekte, wie gut die Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft in die Community überregionaler Informationseinrichtungen und anderer deutscher informationswissenschaftlicher Forschungsgruppen eingebunden ist. Damit hat der Workshop bei einer weiteren Öffnung der Expertengruppe das Potential zu einer eigenständigen Institution im Bereich des Information Retrieval zu werden. In diesem Sinne lässt sich auf weitere fruchtbare Workshops und deren Veröffentlichungen hoffen. Ein nächster Workshop der Universität Hildesheim zum Thema Information Retrieval, organisiert mit der Fachgruppe Information Retrieval der Gesellschaft für Informatik, kündigt sich bereits für den 9. bis 13- Oktober 2006 an."
  8. Hawking, D.; Craswell, N.: ¬The very large collection and Web tracks (2005) 0.02 
    0.019264605 = product of:
  0.08990149 = sum of:
    0.041844364 = weight(_text_:web in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041844364 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
    0.03594954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03594954 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 5085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5085)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  9. Wolff, C.: Leistungsvergleich der Retrievaloberflächen zwischen Web und klassischen Expertensystemen (2001) 0.02 
    0.017320752 = product of:
  0.08083018 = sum of:
    0.034519844 = weight(_text_:web in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034519844 = score(doc=5870,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=5870,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5870, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5870)
    0.036322083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036322083 = score(doc=5870,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 5870, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5870)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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
    Source
    Information Research & Content Management: Orientierung, Ordnung und Organisation im Wissensmarkt; 23. DGI-Online-Tagung der DGI und 53. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis e.V. DGI, Frankfurt am Main, 8.-10.5.2001. Proceedings. Hrsg.: R. Schmidt
  10. Airio, E.: Who benefits from CLIR in web retrieval? (2008) 0.02 
    0.017303396 = product of:
  0.080749184 = sum of:
    0.036238287 = weight(_text_:web in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036238287 = score(doc=2342,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=2342,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
    0.03594954 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03594954 = score(doc=2342,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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.
  11. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.: Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) (2000) 0.02 
    0.016029192 = product of:
  0.0748029 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
    0.04194113 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04194113 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
    0.018736245 = product of:
      0.056208733 = sum of:
        0.056208733 = weight(_text_:22 in 6438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056208733 = score(doc=6438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6438)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Date
    11. 8.2001 16:22:19
    Source
    Information processing and management. 36(2000) no.1, S.3-36
  12. Landoni, M.; Bell, S.: Information retrieval techniques for evaluating search engines : a critical overview (2000) 0.01 
    0.013749211 = product of:
  0.064162984 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 716, 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=716)
    0.012107591 = weight(_text_:information in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012107591 = score(doc=716,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
    0.031133216 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031133216 = score(doc=716,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of a scientifically sounded approach to search engine evaluation. Nowadays there is a flourishing literature which describes various attempts at conducting such evaluation by following all sort of approaches, but very often only the final results are published with little, if any, information about the methodology and the procedures adopted. These various experiments have been critically investigated and catalogued according to their scientific foundation by Bell [1] in the attempt to provide a valuable framework for future studies in this area. This paper reconsiders some of Bell's ideas in the light of the crisis of classic evaluation techniques for information retrieval and tries to envisage some form of collaboration between the IR and web communities in order to design a better and more consistent platform for the evaluation of tools for interactive information retrieval.
  13. Borlund, P.: Evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems (2000) 0.01 
    0.013730608 = product of:
  0.09611425 = sum of:
    0.02421518 = weight(_text_:information in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02421518 = score(doc=2556,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.46549135 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
    0.07189907 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07189907 = score(doc=2556,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.8021017 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    LCSH
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Evaluation
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval / Datenbankverwaltung / Hochschulschrift (GBV)
    Information Retrieval / Dialogsystem (SWB)
    Information Retrieval / Dialogsystem / Leistungsbewertung (BVB)
    Subject
    Information Retrieval / Datenbankverwaltung / Hochschulschrift (GBV)
    Information Retrieval / Dialogsystem (SWB)
    Information Retrieval / Dialogsystem / Leistungsbewertung (BVB)
    Information storage and retrieval systems / Evaluation
  14. Dresel, R.; Hörnig, D.; Kaluza, H.; Peter, A.; Roßmann, A.; Sieber, W.: Evaluation deutscher Web-Suchwerkzeuge : Ein vergleichender Retrievaltest (2001) 0.01 
    0.0124777295 = product of:
  0.0582294 = sum of:
    0.039451245 = weight(_text_:web in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039451245 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 52(2001) H.7, S.381-392
  15. Savoy , J.: Cross-language information retrieval : experiments based an CLEF 2000 corpora (2003) 0.01 
    0.012177391 = product of:
  0.056827825 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1034, 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=1034)
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=1034,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
    0.025420163 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025420163 = score(doc=1034,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Search engines play an essential role in the usability of Internet-based information systems and without them the Web would be much less accessible, and at the very least would develop at a much slower rate. Given that non-English users now tend to make up the majority in this environment, our main objective is to analyze and evaluate the retrieval effectiveness of various indexing and search strategies based on test-collections written in four different languages: English, French, German, and Italian. Our second objective is to describe and evaluate various approaches that might be implemented in order to effectively access document collections written in another language. As a third objective, we will explore the underlying problems involved in searching document collections written in the four different languages, and we will suggest and evaluate different database merging strategies capable of providing the user with a single unique result list.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.1, S.75-115
  16. Petrelli, D.: On the role of user-centred evaluation in the advancement of interactive information retrieval (2008) 0.01 
    0.01215637 = product of:
  0.056729726 = sum of:
    0.013347364 = weight(_text_:information in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013347364 = score(doc=2026,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.036690846 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036690846 = score(doc=2026,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=2026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2026)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the role of user-centred evaluations as an essential method for researching interactive information retrieval. It draws mainly on the work carried out during the Clarity Project where different user-centred evaluations were run during the lifecycle of a cross-language information retrieval system. The iterative testing was not only instrumental to the development of a usable system, but it enhanced our knowledge of the potential, impact, and actual use of cross-language information retrieval technology. Indeed the role of the user evaluation was dual: by testing a specific prototype it was possible to gain a micro-view and assess the effectiveness of each component of the complex system; by cumulating the result of all the evaluations (in total 43 people were involved) it was possible to build a macro-view of how cross-language retrieval would impact on users and their tasks. By showing the richness of results that can be acquired, this paper aims at stimulating researchers into considering user-centred evaluations as a flexible, adaptable and comprehensive technique for investigating non-traditional information access systems.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenbereichs: Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.1, S.22-38
  17. King, D.W.: Blazing new trails : in celebration of an audacious career (2000) 0.01 
    0.010501441 = product of:
  0.049006723 = sum of:
    0.012357258 = weight(_text_:information in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012357258 = score(doc=1184,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.029957948 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029957948 = score(doc=1184,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    I had the distinct pleasure of working with Pauline Atherton (Cochrane) during the 1960s, a period that can be considered the heyday of automated information system design and evaluation in the United States. I first met Pauline at the 1962 American Documentation Institute annual meeting in North Hollywood, Florida. My company, Westat Research Analysts, had recently been awarded a contract by the U.S. Patent Office to provide statistical support for the design of experiments with automated information retrieval systems. I was asked to attend the meeting to learn more about information retrieval systems and to begin informing others of U.S. Patent Office activities in this area. At one session, Pauline and I questioned a speaker about the research that he presented. Pauline's questions concerned the logic of their approach and mine, the statistical aspects. After the session, she came over to talk to me and we began a professional and personal friendship that continues to this day. During the 1960s, Pauline was involved in several important information-retrieval projects including a series of studies for the American Institute of Physics, a dissertation examining the relevance of retrieved documents, and development and evaluation of an online information-retrieval system. I had the opportunity to work with Pauline and her colleagues an four of those projects and will briefly describe her work in the 1960s.
    Date
    22. 9.1997 19:16:05
    Imprint
    Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science
  18. Buckley, C.; Voorhees, E.M.: Retrieval system evaluation (2005) 0.01 
    0.01049132 = product of:
  0.07343923 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
    0.05931371 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05931371 = score(doc=648,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6617001 = fieldWeight in 648, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=648)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    TREC: experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Ed.: E.M. Voorhees, u. D.K. Harman
  19. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000) 0.01 
    0.0103876535 = product of:
  0.07271357 = sum of:
    0.05917687 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05917687 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
    0.013536699 = weight(_text_:information in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013536699 = score(doc=4587,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.432-443
  20. Cole, C.: Intelligent information retrieval : Part IV: Testing the timing of two information retrieval devices in a naturalistic setting (2001) 0.01 
    0.010258756 = product of:
  0.07181129 = sum of:
    0.020970963 = weight(_text_:information in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970963 = score(doc=365,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
    0.050840326 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050840326 = score(doc=365,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 37(2001) no.1, S.163-182

Authors

Languages

  • e 110
  • d 21
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 124
  • m 5
  • el 3
  • s 3
  • r 2
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications