Search (462 results, page 1 of 24)

  • × 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) 0.04 
    0.04424799 = product of:
  0.17699195 = sum of:
    0.081729405 = weight(_text_:wide in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081729405 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.044339646 = weight(_text_:web in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044339646 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.012829596 = weight(_text_:information in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012829596 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3892, 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=3892)
    0.0380933 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380933 = score(doc=3892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3892, 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=3892)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    Source
    Library and information science. 1997, no.37, S.1-11
  2. Mandl, T.: Web- und Multimedia-Dokumente : Neuere Entwicklungen bei der Evaluierung von Information Retrieval Systemen (2003) 0.04 
    0.037287936 = product of:
  0.14915174 = sum of:
    0.029559765 = weight(_text_:web in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029559765 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.019125232 = weight(_text_:information in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019125232 = score(doc=1734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.05678614 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05678614 = score(doc=1734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.043680605 = weight(_text_:software in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043680605 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.35064998 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    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
  3. Breuer, T.; Tavakolpoursaleh, N.; Schaer, P.; Hienert, D.; Schaible, J.; Castro, L.J.: Online Information Retrieval Evaluation using the STELLA Framework (2022) 0.04 
    0.036828764 = product of:
  0.11785204 = sum of:
    0.022169823 = weight(_text_:web in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022169823 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.009586309 = product of:
      0.019172618 = sum of:
        0.019172618 = weight(_text_:online in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019172618 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.012829596 = weight(_text_:information in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012829596 = score(doc=640,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 640, 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=640)
    0.02693603 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02693603 = score(doc=640,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 640, 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=640)
    0.04633028 = weight(_text_:software in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04633028 = score(doc=640,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
  0.3125 = coord(5/16)
    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.
  4. Wu, C.-J.: Experiments on using the Dublin Core to reduce the retrieval error ratio (1998) 0.03 
    0.031247724 = product of:
  0.124990895 = sum of:
    0.04767549 = weight(_text_:wide in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04767549 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.025864797 = weight(_text_:web in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025864797 = score(doc=5201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.012962549 = weight(_text_:information in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012962549 = score(doc=5201,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5201, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5201)
    0.03848806 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03848806 = score(doc=5201,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 5201, 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=5201)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    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
    Source
    Journal of library and information science. 24(1998) no.1, S.50-64
  5. ¬The Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference, TREC 2002 (2003) 0.03 
    0.026344443 = product of:
  0.10537777 = sum of:
    0.029559765 = weight(_text_:web in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029559765 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.014814342 = weight(_text_:information in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014814342 = score(doc=4049,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.043986354 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043986354 = score(doc=4049,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.017017314 = product of:
      0.03403463 = sum of:
        0.03403463 = weight(_text_:22 in 4049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03403463 = score(doc=4049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    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
  6. Jascó, P.: CD-ROM commentaries : the speed of the retrieval software (1996) 0.03 
    0.026173647 = product of:
  0.13959278 = sum of:
    0.0074839313 = weight(_text_:information in 6992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0074839313 = score(doc=6992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 6992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6992)
    0.03848806 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03848806 = score(doc=6992,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 6992, 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=6992)
    0.09362079 = weight(_text_:software in 6992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09362079 = score(doc=6992,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.75154936 = fieldWeight in 6992, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6992)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    Smart retrieval software can have more impact on response time than a faster CD-ROM drive. This can be shown easily now that more commerical databases are being released in several versions with practically identical content but different software. Illustrates this with 3 versions of the PAIS database, comparing the original OCSI, SPIRS software, and EBSCO software. Whereas the OCSI version took no more than a few seconds, the other 2 versions took around 10times longer, occasionally in the order of minutes. Considers how the construction of these products can account for such speed differences. However, search facilities and other features should be considered as well as speed. Offers advice for testing retrieval software
    Source
    Information today. 13(1996) no.10, S.24
  7. 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) 0.03 
    0.02527033 = product of:
  0.10108132 = sum of:
    0.040864702 = weight(_text_:wide in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040864702 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.022169823 = weight(_text_:web in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022169823 = score(doc=446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.011110757 = weight(_text_:information in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011110757 = score(doc=446,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 446, 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=446)
    0.02693603 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02693603 = score(doc=446,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 446, 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=446)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    Abstract
    This study investigated information retrieval from hypertext on the WWW. Significant main and interaction effects were found for both link density (number of links per display) and display format (in paragraphs or lists) on search performance. Low link densities displayed in list format produced the best overall results, in terms of search accuracy, search time, number of links explored, and search task prioritization. Lower densities affected user ability to prioritize search tasks and produced more accurate searches, while list displays positively affected all aspects of searching except task prioritization. The performance of novices and experts, in terms of their previous experience browsing hypertext on the WWW, was compared. Experts performed better, mostly because of their superior task prioritization
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.2, S.176-182
  8. Keen, E.M.: Some aspects of proximity searching in text retrieval systems (1992) 0.03 
    0.025232531 = product of:
  0.100930125 = sum of:
    0.012781745 = product of:
      0.02556349 = sum of:
        0.02556349 = weight(_text_:online in 6190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02556349 = score(doc=6190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 6190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008553064 = weight(_text_:information in 6190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008553064 = score(doc=6190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6190, 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=6190)
    0.035914708 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035914708 = score(doc=6190,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 6190, 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=6190)
    0.043680605 = weight(_text_:software in 6190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043680605 = score(doc=6190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.35064998 = fieldWeight in 6190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6190)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    Abstract
    Describes and evaluates the proximity search facilities in external online systems and in-house retrieval software. Discusses and illustrates capabilities, syntax and circumstances of use. Presents measurements of the overheads required by proximity for storage, record input time and search time. The search strategy narrowing effect of proximity is illustrated by recall and precision test results. Usage and problems lead to a number of design ideas for better implementation: some based on existing Boolean strategies, one on the use of weighted proximity to automatically produce ranked output. A comparison of Boolean, quorum and proximate term pairs distance is included
    Source
    Journal of information science. 18(1992), S.89-98
  9. Behnert, C.; Lewandowski, D.: ¬A framework for designing retrieval effectiveness studies of library information systems using human relevance assessments (2017) 0.02 
    0.024857033 = product of:
  0.09942813 = sum of:
    0.026127389 = weight(_text_:web in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026127389 = score(doc=3700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.00798859 = product of:
      0.01597718 = sum of:
        0.01597718 = weight(_text_:online in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01597718 = score(doc=3700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.015119824 = weight(_text_:information in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015119824 = score(doc=3700,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
    0.050192326 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050192326 = score(doc=3700,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 3700, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3700)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    Abstract
    Purpose This paper demonstrates how to apply traditional information retrieval evaluation methods based on standards from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) and web search evaluation to all types of modern library information systems including online public access catalogs, discovery systems, and digital libraries that provide web search features to gather information from heterogeneous sources. Design/methodology/approach We apply conventional procedures from information retrieval evaluation to the library information system context considering the specific characteristics of modern library materials. Findings We introduce a framework consisting of five parts: (1) search queries, (2) search results, (3) assessors, (4) testing, and (5) data analysis. We show how to deal with comparability problems resulting from diverse document types, e.g., electronic articles vs. printed monographs and what issues need to be considered for retrieval tests in the library context. Practical implications The framework can be used as a guideline for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies in the library context. Originality/value Although a considerable amount of research has been done on information retrieval evaluation, and standards for conducting retrieval effectiveness studies do exist, to our knowledge this is the first attempt to provide a systematic framework for evaluating the retrieval effectiveness of twenty-first-century library information systems. We demonstrate which issues must be considered and what decisions must be made by researchers prior to a retrieval test.
  10. Wolff, C.: Leistungsvergleich der Retrievaloberflächen zwischen Web und klassischen Expertensystemen (2001) 0.02 
    0.024208577 = product of:
  0.09683431 = sum of:
    0.036578346 = weight(_text_:web in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036578346 = score(doc=5870,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.0111840265 = product of:
      0.022368053 = sum of:
        0.022368053 = weight(_text_:online in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022368053 = score(doc=5870,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 5870, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.010583877 = weight(_text_:information in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010583877 = score(doc=5870,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.03848806 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03848806 = score(doc=5870,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    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
  11. Schabas, A.H.: Postcoordinate retrieval : a comparison of two retrieval languages (1982) 0.02 
    0.023739778 = product of:
  0.09495911 = sum of:
    0.040864702 = weight(_text_:wide in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040864702 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
    0.009586309 = product of:
      0.019172618 = sum of:
        0.019172618 = weight(_text_:online in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019172618 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09529729 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
    0.0380933 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380933 = score(doc=1202,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1202, 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=1202)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    Abstract
    This article reports on a comparison of the postcoordinate retrieval effectiveness of two indexing languages: LCSH and PRECIS. The effect of augmenting each with title words was also studies. The database for the study was over 15.000 UK MARC records. Users returned 5.326 relevant judgements for citations retrieved for 61 SDI profiles, representing a wide variety of subjects. Results are reported in terms of precision and relative recall. Pure/applied sciences data and social science data were analyzed separately. Cochran's significance tests for ratios were used to interpret the findings. Recall emerged as the more important measure discriminating the behavior of the two languages. Addition of title words was found to improve recall of both indexing languages significantly. A direct relationship was observed between recall and exhaustivity. For the social sciences searches, recalls from PRECIS alone and from PRECIS with title words were significantly higher than those from LCSH alone and from LCSH with title words, respectively. Corresponding comparisons for the pure/applied sciences searches revealed no significant differences
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 33(1982), S.32-37
    Theme
    Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval
  12. Voorhees, E.M.; Harman, D.K.: ¬The Text REtrieval Conference (2005) 0.02 
    0.022594558 = product of:
  0.09037823 = sum of:
    0.023837745 = weight(_text_:wide in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023837745 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.012932398 = weight(_text_:web in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012932398 = score(doc=5082,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.009165906 = weight(_text_:information in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009165906 = score(doc=5082,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.044442184 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044442184 = score(doc=5082,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    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
  13. Schirrmeister, N.-P.; Keil, S.: Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen (2012) 0.02 
    0.022423496 = product of:
  0.11959198 = sum of:
    0.019125232 = weight(_text_:information in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019125232 = score(doc=3097,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3469568 = fieldWeight in 3097, 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=3097)
    0.05678614 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05678614 = score(doc=3097,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.59785134 = fieldWeight in 3097, 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=3097)
    0.043680605 = weight(_text_:software in 3097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043680605 = score(doc=3097,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124570385 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.35064998 = fieldWeight in 3097, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3097)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    Das Projekt "Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen" (AIIRE) bietet eine Softwareinfrastruktur zur Unterstützung von Information Retrieval-Evaluationen (IR-Evaluationen). Die Infrastruktur basiert auf einem Tool-Kit, das bei GESIS im Rahmen des DFG-Projekts IRM entwickelt wurde. Ziel ist es, ein System zu bieten, das zur Forschung und Lehre am Fachbereich Media für IR-Evaluationen genutzt werden kann. This paper describes some aspects of a project called "Aufbau einer Infrastruktur für Information Retrieval-Evaluationen" (AIIRE). Its goal is to build a software-infrastructure which supports the evaluation of information retrieval algorithms.
  14. Griesbaum, J.: Evaluierung hybrider Suchsysteme im WWW (2000) 0.02 
    0.022123994 = product of:
  0.08849598 = sum of:
    0.040864702 = weight(_text_:wide in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040864702 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.022169823 = weight(_text_:web in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022169823 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.006414798 = weight(_text_:information in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006414798 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.01904665 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01904665 = score(doc=2482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    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.
  15. Ellis, D.: Progress and problems in information retrieval (1996) 0.02 
    0.02146986 = product of:
  0.11450592 = sum of:
    0.02565919 = weight(_text_:information in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02565919 = score(doc=789,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.46549135 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
    0.071829416 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071829416 = score(doc=789,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.75622874 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.017017314 = product of:
      0.03403463 = sum of:
        0.03403463 = weight(_text_:22 in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03403463 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10995905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031400457 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    An introduction to the principal generic approaches to information retrieval research with their associated concepts, models and systems, this text is designed to keep the information professional up to date with the major themes and developments that have preoccupied researchers in recent month in relation to textual and documentary retrieval systems.
    COMPASS
    Information retrieval
    Content
    First published 1991 as New horizons in information retrieval
    Date
    26. 7.2002 20:22:46
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Managing information 3(1996) no.10, S.49 (D. Bawden); Program 32(1998) no.2, S.190-192 (C. Revie)
    LCSH
    Information retrieval
    Subject
    Information retrieval
    Information retrieval
  16. Kantor, P.; Kim, M.H.; Ibraev, U.; Atasoy, K.: Estimating the number of relevant documents in enormous collections (1999) 0.02 
    0.0214167 = product of:
  0.0856668 = sum of:
    0.03405392 = weight(_text_:wide in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03405392 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.018474855 = weight(_text_:web in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018474855 = score(doc=6690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.01069133 = weight(_text_:information in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01069133 = score(doc=6690,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
    0.022446692 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022446692 = score(doc=6690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 6690, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6690)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    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
    Imprint
    Medford, NJ : Information Today
    Series
    Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36
    Source
    Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods
  17. Harman, D.: ¬The Text REtrieval Conferences (TRECs) : providing a test-bed for information retrieval systems (1998) 0.02 
    0.021062106 = product of:
  0.11233123 = sum of:
    0.04767549 = weight(_text_:wide in 1314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04767549 = score(doc=1314,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 1314, 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=1314)
    0.0149678625 = weight(_text_:information in 1314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0149678625 = score(doc=1314,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1314, 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=1314)
    0.049687874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049687874 = score(doc=1314,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.5231199 = fieldWeight in 1314, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1314)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) workshop series encourages research in information retrieval from large text applications by providing a large test collection, uniform scoring procedures and a forum for organizations interested in comparing their results. Now in its seventh year, the conference has become the major experimental effort in the field. Participants in the TREC conferences have examined a wide variety of retrieval techniques, including methods using automatic thesauri, sophisticated term weighting, natural language techniques, relevance feedback and advanced pattern matching. The TREC conference series is co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Information Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
    Source
    Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 24(1998), April/May, S.11-13
  18. 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 
    0.019903298 = product of:
  0.106150925 = sum of:
    0.040864702 = weight(_text_:wide in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040864702 = score(doc=4598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.04957324 = weight(_text_:web in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04957324 = score(doc=4598,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10247572 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
    0.015712982 = weight(_text_:information in 4598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015712982 = score(doc=4598,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = 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)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    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
  19. Frei, H.P.; Meienberg, S.; Schäuble, P.: ¬The perils of interpreting recall and precision values (1991) 0.02 
    0.019727875 = product of:
  0.105215326 = sum of:
    0.05448627 = weight(_text_:wide in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05448627 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13912784 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
    0.014814342 = weight(_text_:information in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014814342 = score(doc=786,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 786, 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=786)
    0.035914708 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035914708 = score(doc=786,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 786, 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=786)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    The traditional recall and precision measure is inappropriate when retrieval algorithms that retrieve information from Wide Area Networks are evaluated. The principle reason is that information available in WANs is dynamic and its size os orders of magnitude greater than the size of the usual test collections. To overcome these problems, a new efffectiveness measure has been developed, which we call the 'usefulness measure'
    Source
    Information retrieval: GI/GMD-Workshop, Darmstadt, 23.-24.6.1991: Proceedings. Ed.: N. Fuhr
  20. Sen, B.K.: ¬An inquiry into the information retrieval efficiency of LISA PLUS database (1996) 0.02 
    0.019389063 = product of:
  0.10340834 = sum of:
    0.07001776 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 6640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07001776 = score(doc=6640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18211427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 6640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6640)
    0.014343925 = weight(_text_:information in 6640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014343925 = score(doc=6640,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.055122808 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 6640, 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=6640)
    0.01904665 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01904665 = score(doc=6640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09498371 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031400457 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 6640, 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=6640)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to compare the efficiency of the computerized searching of LISA Plus and Currents Research in Library and Information Science (CRLIS) with manual searching of the printed version of LISA. The study focused on articles covering the library and information science profession (LIS), published in Asian library and information science periodicals. The first stage was to identify Asian LIS periodicals using the Ulrich's Plus CD-ROM database. Computerized searching involved 2 methods; straightforward creation of sets for every periodical title; and browsing of brief citations of abstracts of all articles identified as being on the library profession published in the 1993 LISA. The manual searching involved browsing section 2.0 profession for all 11 issues of the printed LISA. Examines the reasons why computeroized searches took more time and retrieved less number of items. Suggests measures whereby the efficiency of computerized searches can be increased and concludes that to ensure comprehensive recall of relevant items, a combination of manual and computerized search is indispensible
    Source
    Malaysian journal of libarry and information science. 1(1996) no.1, S.67-84

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 428
  • s 15
  • el 10
  • m 9
  • r 6
  • x 4
  • d 1
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications