Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × theme_ss:"Suchmaschinen"
  1. Kanaeva, Z.: Ranking: Google und CiteSeer (2005) 0.01 
    0.007509168 = product of:
  0.056318756 = sum of:
    0.01906849 = weight(_text_:und in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01906849 = score(doc=3276,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
    0.037250265 = sum of:
      0.009767379 = weight(_text_:information in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009767379 = score(doc=3276,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 3276, 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=3276)
      0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 3276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027482886 = score(doc=3276,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3276, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3276)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen des klassischen Information Retrieval wurden verschiedene Verfahren für das Ranking sowie die Suche in einer homogenen strukturlosen Dokumentenmenge entwickelt. Die Erfolge der Suchmaschine Google haben gezeigt dass die Suche in einer zwar inhomogenen aber zusammenhängenden Dokumentenmenge wie dem Internet unter Berücksichtigung der Dokumentenverbindungen (Links) sehr effektiv sein kann. Unter den von der Suchmaschine Google realisierten Konzepten ist ein Verfahren zum Ranking von Suchergebnissen (PageRank), das in diesem Artikel kurz erklärt wird. Darüber hinaus wird auf die Konzepte eines Systems namens CiteSeer eingegangen, welches automatisch bibliographische Angaben indexiert (engl. Autonomous Citation Indexing, ACI). Letzteres erzeugt aus einer Menge von nicht vernetzten wissenschaftlichen Dokumenten eine zusammenhängende Dokumentenmenge und ermöglicht den Einsatz von Banking-Verfahren, die auf den von Google genutzten Verfahren basieren.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 16:23:22
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 56(2005) H.2, S.87-92
  2. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.01 
    0.005845145 = product of:
  0.043838583 = sum of:
    0.028134076 = weight(_text_:und in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028134076 = score(doc=1484,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
    0.015704507 = product of:
      0.031409014 = sum of:
        0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031409014 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Dieses Whitepaper beschäftigt sich mit der Definition und Bewertung von Faktoren, die eine hohe Rangkorrelation-Koeffizienz mit organischen Suchergebnissen aufweisen und dient dem Zweck der tieferen Analyse von Suchmaschinen-Algorithmen. Die Datenerhebung samt Auswertung bezieht sich auf Ranking-Faktoren für Google-Deutschland im Jahr 2014. Zusätzlich wurden die Korrelationen und Faktoren unter anderem anhand von Durchschnitts- und Medianwerten sowie Entwicklungstendenzen zu den Vorjahren hinsichtlich ihrer Relevanz für vordere Suchergebnis-Positionen interpretiert.
    Date
    13. 9.2014 14:45:22
  3. Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000) 0.00 
    0.0045852624 = product of:
  0.06877893 = sum of:
    0.06877893 = sum of:
      0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01381316 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
      0.05496577 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05496577 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, 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=3445)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    25. 8.2005 17:42:22
    Source
    Library and information research news. 24(2000) no.77, S.30-34
  4. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.00 
    0.003396225 = product of:
  0.025471685 = sum of:
    0.022018395 = weight(_text_:und in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022018395 = score(doc=5023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.00345329 = product of:
      0.00690658 = sum of:
        0.00690658 = weight(_text_:information in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00690658 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5023, 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=5023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag beschreibt eine Studie zur Entwicklung und Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme. Dazu wurden mögliche Faktoren für das Relevanzranking ausgehend von den Verfahren in Websuchmaschinen identifiziert, auf den Bibliothekskontext übertragen und systematisch evaluiert. Mithilfe eines Testsystems, das auf dem ZBW-Informationsportal EconBiz und einer web-basierten Software zur Evaluierung von Suchsystemen aufsetzt, wurden verschiedene Relevanzfaktoren (z. B. Popularität in Verbindung mit Aktualität) getestet. Obwohl die getesteten Rankingverfahren auf einer theoretischen Ebene divers sind, konnten keine einheitlichen Verbesserungen gegenüber den Baseline-Rankings gemessen werden. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass eine Adaptierung des Rankings auf individuelle Nutzer bzw. Nutzungskontexte notwendig sein könnte, um eine höhere Performance zu erzielen.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.1, S.14-23
  5. Berry, M.W.; Browne, M.: Understanding search engines : mathematical modeling and text retrieval (1999) 0.00 
    0.002746075 = product of:
  0.020595562 = sum of:
    0.013345163 = weight(_text_:und in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013345163 = score(doc=5777,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 5777, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5777)
    0.007250399 = product of:
      0.014500798 = sum of:
        0.014500798 = weight(_text_:information in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014500798 = score(doc=5777,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 5777, 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=5777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    This book discusses many of the key design issues for building search engines and emphazises the important role that applied mathematics can play in improving information retrieval. The authors discuss not only important data structures, algorithms, and software but also user-centered issues such as interfaces, manual indexing, and document preparation. They also present some of the current problems in information retrieval that many not be familiar to applied mathematicians and computer scientists and some of the driving computational methods (SVD, SDD) for automated conceptual indexing
    Classification
    ST 230 [Informatik # Monographien # Software und -entwicklung # Software allgemein, (Einführung, Lehrbücher, Methoden der Programmierung) Software engineering, Programmentwicklungssysteme, Softwarewerkzeuge]
    RSWK
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)
    RVK
    ST 230 [Informatik # Monographien # Software und -entwicklung # Software allgemein, (Einführung, Lehrbücher, Methoden der Programmierung) Software engineering, Programmentwicklungssysteme, Softwarewerkzeuge]
    Subject
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)
  6. Stock, M.; Stock, W.G.: Internet-Suchwerkzeuge im Vergleich (IV) : Relevance Ranking nach "Popularität" von Webseiten: Google (2001) 0.00 
    0.0025739179 = product of:
  0.019304384 = sum of:
    0.01634442 = weight(_text_:und in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01634442 = score(doc=5771,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=5771,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5771, 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=5771)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    In unserem Retrievaltest von Suchwerkzeugen im World Wide Web (Password 11/2000) schnitt die Suchmaschine Google am besten ab. Im Vergleich zu anderen Search Engines setzt Google kaum auf Informationslinguistik, sondern auf Algorithmen, die sich aus den Besonderheiten der Web-Dokumente ableiten lassen. Kernstück der informationsstatistischen Technik ist das "PageRank"- Verfahren (benannt nach dem Entwickler Larry Page), das aus der Hypertextstruktur des Web die "Popularität" von Seiten anhand ihrer ein- und ausgehenden Links berechnet. Google besticht durch das Angebot intuitiv verstehbarer Suchbildschirme sowie durch einige sehr nützliche "Kleinigkeiten" wie die Angabe des Rangs einer Seite, Highlighting, Suchen in der Seite, Suchen innerhalb eines Suchergebnisses usw., alles verstaut in einer eigenen Befehlsleiste innerhalb des Browsers. Ähnlich wie RealNames bietet Google mit dem Produkt "AdWords" den Aufkauf von Suchtermen an. Nach einer Reihe von nunmehr vier Password-Artikeln über InternetSuchwerkzeugen im Vergleich wollen wir abschließend zu einer Bewertung kommen. Wie ist der Stand der Technik bei Directories und Search Engines aus informationswissenschaftlicher Sicht einzuschätzen? Werden die "typischen" Internetnutzer, die ja in der Regel keine Information Professionals sind, adäquat bedient? Und können auch Informationsfachleute von den Suchwerkzeugen profitieren?
  7. Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003) 0.00 
    0.0019651123 = product of:
  0.029476684 = sum of:
    0.029476684 = sum of:
      0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005919926 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Previous work an search-engine design has indicated that information-seekers may benefit from being given the opportunity to exploit multiple sources of evidence of document relatedness. Few existing systems, however, give users more than minimal control over the selections that may be made among methods of exploitation. By applying the methods of "document network analysis" (DNA), a unifying, graph-theoretic model of content-, collaboration-, and context-based systems (CCC) may be developed in which the nature of the similarities between types of document relatedness and document ranking are clarified. The usefulness of the approach to system design suggested by this model may be tested by constructing and evaluating a prototype system (UCXtra) that allows searchers to maintain control over the multiple ways in which document collections may be ranked and re-ranked.
    Date
    11. 9.2004 17:32:22
  8. Weiß, B.: Verwandte Seiten finden : "Ähnliche Seiten" oder "What's Related" (2005) 0.00 
    0.0013870286 = product of:
  0.020805428 = sum of:
    0.020805428 = weight(_text_:und in 868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020805428 = score(doc=868,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.32394084 = fieldWeight in 868, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=868)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Die Link-Struktur-Analyse (LSA) ist nicht nur beim Crawling, dem Webseitenranking, der Abgrenzung geographischer Bereiche, der Vorhersage von Linkverwendungen, dem Auffinden von "Mirror"-Seiten, dem Kategorisieren von Webseiten und beim Generieren von Webseitenstatistiken eines der wichtigsten Analyseverfahren, sondern auch bei der Suche nach verwandten Seiten. Um qualitativ hochwertige verwandte Seiten zu finden, bildet sie nach herrschender Meinung den Hauptbestandteil bei der Identifizierung von ähnlichen Seiten innerhalb themenspezifischer Graphen vernetzter Dokumente. Dabei wird stets von zwei Annahmen ausgegangen: Links zwischen zwei Dokumenten implizieren einen verwandten Inhalt beider Dokumente und wenn die Dokumente aus unterschiedlichen Quellen (von unterschiedlichen Autoren, Hosts, Domänen, .) stammen, so bedeutet dies das eine Quelle die andere über einen Link empfiehlt. Aufbauend auf dieser Idee entwickelte Kleinberg 1998 den HITS Algorithmus um verwandte Seiten über die Link-Struktur-Analyse zu bestimmen. Dieser Ansatz wurde von Bharat und Henzinger weiterentwickelt und später auch in Algorithmen wie dem Companion und Cocitation Algorithmus zur Suche von verwandten Seiten basierend auf nur einer Anfrage-URL weiter verfolgt. In der vorliegenden Seminararbeit sollen dabei die Algorithmen, die hinter diesen Überlegungen stehen, näher erläutert werden und im Anschluss jeweils neuere Forschungsansätze auf diesem Themengebiet aufgezeigt werden.
    Content
    Ausarbeitung im Rahmen des Seminars Suchmaschinen und Suchalgorithmen, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik Praktische Informatik in der Wirtschaft, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. - Vgl.: http://www-wi.uni-muenster.de/pi/lehre/ss05/seminarSuchen/Ausarbeitungen/BurkhardWei%DF.pdf
  9. Lanvent, A.: Licht im Daten Chaos (2004) 0.00 
    9.378026E-4 = product of:
  0.014067038 = sum of:
    0.014067038 = weight(_text_:und in 2806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014067038 = score(doc=2806,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.219024 = fieldWeight in 2806, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2806)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Content
    "Bitte suchen Sie alle Unterlagen, die im PC zum Ibelshäuser-Vertrag in Sprockhövel gespeichert sind. Finden Sie alles, was wir haben - Dokumente, Tabellen, Präsentationen, Scans, E-Mails. Und erledigen Sie das gleich! « Wer diese Aufgabe an das Windows-eigene Suchmodul vergibt, wird zwangsläufig enttäuscht. Denn das Betriebssystem beherrscht weder die formatübergreifende Recherche noch die Kontextsuche, die für solche komplexen Aufträge nötig sind. Professionelle Desktop-Suchmaschinen erledigen Aufgaben dieser Art jedoch im Handumdrehen - genauer gesagt in einer einzigen Sekunde. Spitzenprogramme wie Global Brain benötigen dafür nicht einmal umfangreiche Abfrageformulare. Es genügt, einen Satz im Eingabefeld zu formulieren, der das Thema der gewünschten Dokumente eingrenzt. Dabei suchen die Programme über alle Laufwerke, die sich auf dem System einbinden lassen - also auch im Netzwerk-Ordner (Shared Folder), sofern dieser freigegeben wurde. Allen Testkandidaten - mit Ausnahme von Search 32 - gemeinsam ist, dass sie weitaus bessere Rechercheergebnisse abliefern als Windows, deutlich schneller arbeiten und meist auch in den Online-Postfächern stöbern. Wer schon öfter vergeblich über die Windows-Suche nach wichtigen Dokumenten gefahndet hat, kommt angesichts der Qualität der Search-Engines kaum mehr um die Anschaffung eines Desktop-Suchtools herum. Aber Microsoft will nachbessern. Für den Windows-XP-Nachfolger Longhorn wirbt der Hersteller vor allem mit dem Hinweis auf das neue Dateisystem WinFS, das sämtliche Files auf der Festplatte über Meta-Tags indiziert und dem Anwender damit lange Suchläufe erspart. So sollen sich anders als bei Windows XP alle Dateien zu bestimmten Themen in wenigen Sekunden auflisten lassen - unabhängig vom Format und vom physikalischen Speicherort der Files. Für die Recherche selbst ist dann weder der Dateiname noch das Erstelldatum ausschlaggebend. Anhand der kontextsensitiven Suche von WinFS kann der Anwender einfach einen Suchbefehl wie »Vertragsabschluss mit Firma XYZ, Neunkirchen/Saar« eingeben, der dann ohne Umwege zum Ziel führt."
    Footnote
    Darin auch 2 Teilbeiträge: (1) Know-how - Suchverfahren; (2) Praxis - Windows-Suche und Indexdienst
  10. Chakrabarti, S.; Dom, B.; Kumar, S.R.; Raghavan, P.; Rajagopalan, S.; Tomkins, A.; Kleinberg, J.M.; Gibson, D.: Neue Pfade durch den Internet-Dschungel : Die zweite Generation von Web-Suchmaschinen (1999) 0.00 
    8.387961E-4 = product of:
  0.012581941 = sum of:
    0.012581941 = weight(_text_:und in 3) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012581941 = score(doc=3,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 3, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Content
    Ausnutzen der Hyperlinks für verbesserte Such- und Findeverfahren; Darstellung des HITS-Algorithmus
  11. Ding, Y.; Chowdhury, G.; Foo, S.: Organsising keywords in a Web search environment : a methodology based on co-word analysis (2000) 0.00 
    4.4124527E-4 = product of:
  0.0066186786 = sum of:
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=105,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 105, 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=105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    The rapid development of the Internet and World Wide Web has caused some critical problem for information retrieval. Researchers have made several attempts to solve these problems. Thesauri and subject heading lists as traditional information retrieval tools have been criticised for their efficiency to tackle these newly emerging problems. This paper proposes an information retrieval tool generated by cocitation analysis, comprising keyword clusters with relationships based on the co-occurrences of keywords in the literature. Such a tool can play the role of an associative thesaurus that can provide information about the keywords in a domain that might be useful for information searching and query expansion
  12. Dominich, S.; Skrop, A.: PageRank and interaction information retrieval (2005) 0.00 
    4.4124527E-4 = product of:
  0.0066186786 = sum of:
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 3268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=3268,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 3268, 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=3268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    The PageRank method is used by the Google Web search engine to compute the importance of Web pages. Two different views have been developed for the Interpretation of the PageRank method and values: (a) stochastic (random surfer): the PageRank values can be conceived as the steady-state distribution of a Markov chain, and (b) algebraic: the PageRank values form the eigenvector corresponding to eigenvalue 1 of the Web link matrix. The Interaction Information Retrieval (1**2 R) method is a nonclassical information retrieval paradigm, which represents a connectionist approach based an dynamic systems. In the present paper, a different Interpretation of PageRank is proposed, namely, a dynamic systems viewpoint, by showing that the PageRank method can be formally interpreted as a particular case of the Interaction Information Retrieval method; and thus, the PageRank values may be interpreted as neutral equilibrium points of the Web.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.63-69
  13. Jindal, V.; Bawa, S.; Batra, S.: ¬A review of ranking approaches for semantic search on Web (2014) 0.00 
    4.4124527E-4 = product of:
  0.0066186786 = sum of:
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=2799,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 2799, 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=2799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    With ever increasing information being available to the end users, search engines have become the most powerful tools for obtaining useful information scattered on the Web. However, it is very common that even most renowned search engines return result sets with not so useful pages to the user. Research on semantic search aims to improve traditional information search and retrieval methods where the basic relevance criteria rely primarily on the presence of query keywords within the returned pages. This work is an attempt to explore different relevancy ranking approaches based on semantics which are considered appropriate for the retrieval of relevant information. In this paper, various pilot projects and their corresponding outcomes have been investigated based on methodologies adopted and their most distinctive characteristics towards ranking. An overview of selected approaches and their comparison by means of the classification criteria has been presented. With the help of this comparison, some common concepts and outstanding features have been identified.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 50(2014) no.2, S.416-425
  14. Berry, M.W.; Browne, M.: Understanding search engines : mathematical modeling and text retrieval (2005) 0.00 
    3.4805894E-4 = product of:
  0.005220884 = sum of:
    0.005220884 = product of:
      0.010441768 = sum of:
        0.010441768 = weight(_text_:information in 7) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010441768 = score(doc=7,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 7, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    The second edition of Understanding Search Engines: Mathematical Modeling and Text Retrieval follows the basic premise of the first edition by discussing many of the key design issues for building search engines and emphasizing the important role that applied mathematics can play in improving information retrieval. The authors discuss important data structures, algorithms, and software as well as user-centered issues such as interfaces, manual indexing, and document preparation. Significant changes bring the text up to date on current information retrieval methods: for example the addition of a new chapter on link-structure algorithms used in search engines such as Google. The chapter on user interface has been rewritten to specifically focus on search engine usability. In addition the authors have added new recommendations for further reading and expanded the bibliography, and have updated and streamlined the index to make it more reader friendly.
    Content
    Inhalt: Introduction Document File Preparation - Manual Indexing - Information Extraction - Vector Space Modeling - Matrix Decompositions - Query Representations - Ranking and Relevance Feedback - Searching by Link Structure - User Interface - Book Format Document File Preparation Document Purification and Analysis - Text Formatting - Validation - Manual Indexing - Automatic Indexing - Item Normalization - Inverted File Structures - Document File - Dictionary List - Inversion List - Other File Structures Vector Space Models Construction - Term-by-Document Matrices - Simple Query Matching - Design Issues - Term Weighting - Sparse Matrix Storage - Low-Rank Approximations Matrix Decompositions QR Factorization - Singular Value Decomposition - Low-Rank Approximations - Query Matching - Software - Semidiscrete Decomposition - Updating Techniques Query Management Query Binding - Types of Queries - Boolean Queries - Natural Language Queries - Thesaurus Queries - Fuzzy Queries - Term Searches - Probabilistic Queries Ranking and Relevance Feedback Performance Evaluation - Precision - Recall - Average Precision - Genetic Algorithms - Relevance Feedback Searching by Link Structure HITS Method - HITS Implementation - HITS Summary - PageRank Method - PageRank Adjustments - PageRank Implementation - PageRank Summary User Interface Considerations General Guidelines - Search Engine Interfaces - Form Fill-in - Display Considerations - Progress Indication - No Penalties for Error - Results - Test and Retest - Final Considerations Further Reading
    RSWK
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)
    Subject
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval
    Suchmaschine / Information Retrieval / Mathematisches Modell (HEBIS)
  15. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.: New versions of PageRank employing alternative Web document models (2004) 0.00 
    3.4178712E-4 = product of:
  0.0051268064 = sum of:
    0.0051268064 = product of:
      0.010253613 = sum of:
        0.010253613 = weight(_text_:information in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010253613 = score(doc=674,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 674, 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=674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Introduces several new versions of PageRank (the link based Web page ranking algorithm), based on an information science perspective on the concept of the Web document. Although the Web page is the typical indivisible unit of information in search engine results and most Web information retrieval algorithms, other research has suggested that aggregating pages based on directories and domains gives promising alternatives, particularly when Web links are the object of study. The new algorithms introduced based on these alternatives were used to rank four sets of Web pages. The ranking results were compared with human subjects' rankings. The results of the tests were somewhat inconclusive: the new approach worked well for the set that includes pages from different Web sites; however, it does not work well in ranking pages that are from the same site. It seems that the new algorithms may be effective for some tasks but not for others, especially when only low numbers of links are involved or the pages to be ranked are from the same site or directory.
  16. Bauckhage, C.: Marginalizing over the PageRank damping factor (2014) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    In this note, we show how to marginalize over the damping parameter of the PageRank equation so as to obtain a parameter-free version known as TotalRank. Our discussion is meant as a reference and intended to provide a guided tour towards an interesting result that has applications in information retrieval and classification.
  17. White, R.W.; Jose, J.M.; Ruthven, I.: Using top-ranking sentences to facilitate effective information access (2005) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 3881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=3881,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3881, 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=3881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Web searchers typically fall to view search results beyond the first page nor fully examine those results presented to them. In this article we describe an approach that encourages a deeper examination of the contents of the document set retrieved in response to a searcher's query. The approach shifts the focus of perusal and interaction away from potentially uninformative document surrogates (such as titles, sentence fragments, and URLs) to actual document content, and uses this content to drive the information seeking process. Current search interfaces assume searchers examine results document-by-document. In contrast our approach extracts, ranks, and presents the contents of the top-ranked document set. We use query-relevant topranking sentences extracted from the top documents at retrieval time as fine-grained representations of topranked document content and, when combined in a ranked list, an overview of these documents. The interaction of the searcher provides implicit evidence that is used to reorder the sentences where appropriate. We evaluate our approach in three separate user studies, each applying these sentences in a different way. The findings of these studies show that top-ranking sentences can facilitate effective information access.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.10, S.1113-1125
  18. Lempel, R.; Moran, S.: SALSA: the stochastic approach for link-structure analysis (2001) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=10,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 10, 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=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Today, when searching for information on the WWW, one usually performs a query through a term-based search engine. These engines return, as the query's result, a list of Web pages whose contents matches the query. For broad-topic queries, such searches often result in a huge set of retrieved documents, many of which are irrelevant to the user. However, much information is contained in the link-structure of the WWW. Information such as which pages are linked to others can be used to augment search algorithms. In this context, Jon Kleinberg introduced the notion of two distinct types of Web pages: hubs and authorities. Kleinberg argued that hubs and authorities exhibit a mutually reinforcing relationship: a good hub will point to many authorities, and a good authority will be pointed at by many hubs. In light of this, he dervised an algoirthm aimed at finding authoritative pages. We present SALSA, a new stochastic approach for link-structure analysis, which examines random walks on graphs derived from the link-structure. We show that both SALSA and Kleinberg's Mutual Reinforcement approach employ the same metaalgorithm. We then prove that SALSA is quivalent to a weighted in degree analysis of the link-sturcutre of WWW subgraphs, making it computationally more efficient than the Mutual reinforcement approach. We compare that results of applying SALSA to the results derived through Kleinberg's approach. These comparisions reveal a topological Phenomenon called the TKC effectwhich, in certain cases, prevents the Mutual reinforcement approach from identifying meaningful authorities.
    Source
    ACM transactions on information systems. 19(2001) no.2, S.131-160
  19. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.00 
    2.79068E-4 = product of:
  0.0041860198 = sum of:
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3161, 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=3161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2229-2243
  20. Bilal, D.: Ranking, relevance judgment, and precision of information retrieval on children's queries : evaluation of Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yahoo! Kids, and ask Kids (2012) 0.00 
    2.6310782E-4 = product of:
  0.0039466172 = sum of:
    0.0039466172 = product of:
      0.0078932345 = sum of:
        0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078932345 = score(doc=393,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This study employed benchmarking and intellectual relevance judgment in evaluating Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Yahoo! Kids, and Ask Kids on 30 queries that children formulated to find information for specific tasks. Retrieved hits on given queries were benchmarked to Google's and Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits retrieved. Relevancy of hits was judged on a graded scale; precision was calculated using the precision-at-ten metric (P@10). Yahoo! and Bing produced a similar percentage in hit overlap with Google (nearly 30%), but differed in the ranking of hits. Ask Kids retrieved 11% in hit overlap with Google versus 3% by Yahoo! Kids. The engines retrieved 26 hits across query clusters that overlapped with Yahoo! Kids' top-five ranked hits. Precision (P) that the engines produced across the queries was P = 0.48 for relevant hits, and P = 0.28 for partially relevant hits. Precision by Ask Kids was P = 0.44 for relevant hits versus P = 0.21 by Yahoo! Kids. Bing produced the highest total precision (TP) of relevant hits (TP = 0.86) across the queries, and Yahoo! Kids yielded the lowest (TP = 0.47). Average precision (AP) of relevant hits was AP = 0.56 by leading engines versus AP = 0.29 by small engines. In contrast, average precision of partially relevant hits was AP = 0.83 by small engines versus AP = 0.33 by leading engines. Average precision of relevant hits across the engines was highest on two-word queries and lowest on one-word queries. Google performed best on natural language queries; Bing did the same (P = 0.69) on two-word queries. The findings have implications for search engine ranking algorithms, relevance theory, search engine design, research design, and information literacy.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1879-1896

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 21
  • d 9

Types

  • a 24
  • m 3
  • el 2
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications