Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  1. Tober, M.; Hennig, L.; Furch, D.: SEO Ranking-Faktoren und Rang-Korrelationen 2014 : Google Deutschland (2014) 0.02 
    0.02403602 = product of:
  0.14421612 = sum of:
    0.021326289 = weight(_text_:und in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021326289 = score(doc=1484,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = 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)
    0.013700536 = weight(_text_:der in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013700536 = score(doc=1484,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
    0.021326289 = weight(_text_:und in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021326289 = score(doc=1484,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = 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)
    0.08786301 = sum of:
      0.06405424 = weight(_text_:deutschland in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06405424 = score(doc=1484,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.10609499 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.829954 = idf(docFreq=959, maxDocs=44218)
            0.021966046 = queryNorm
          0.60374427 = fieldWeight in 1484, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.829954 = idf(docFreq=959, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1484)
      0.023808768 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023808768 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.021966046 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(4/24)
    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
  2. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing als Re-Ranking-Ansatz in Literaturinformationssystemen (2011) 0.02 
    0.019822951 = product of:
  0.079291806 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.017521333 = weight(_text_:und in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017521333 = score(doc=4292,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
    0.011167361 = weight(_text_:des in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011167361 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06083074 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.18358089 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
    0.017797519 = weight(_text_:der in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017797519 = score(doc=4292,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.36271852 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
    0.009009332 = product of:
      0.018018665 = sum of:
        0.018018665 = weight(_text_:29 in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018018665 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017521333 = weight(_text_:und in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017521333 = score(doc=4292,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.25 = coord(6/24)
    Abstract
    In diesem Artikel wird ein Re-Ranking-Ansatz für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, der die Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur messbar verbessern kann. Das nichttextorientierte Rankingverfahren Bradfordizing wird eingeführt und anschließend im empirischen Teil des Artikels bzgl. der Effektivität für typische fachbezogene Recherche-Topics evaluiert. Dem Bradford Law of Scattering (BLS), auf dem Bradfordizing basiert, liegt zugrunde, dass sich die Literatur zu einem beliebigen Fachgebiet bzw. -thema in Zonen unterschiedlicher Dokumentenkonzentration verteilt. Dem Kernbereich mit hoher Konzentration der Literatur folgen Bereiche mit mittlerer und geringer Konzentration. Bradfordizing sortiert bzw. rankt eine Dokumentmenge damit nach den sogenannten Kernzeitschriften. Der Retrievaltest mit 164 intellektuell bewerteten Fragestellungen in Fachdatenbanken aus den Bereichen Sozial- und Politikwissenschaften, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin zeigt, dass die Dokumente der Kernzeitschriften signifikant häufiger relevant bewertet werden als Dokumente der zweiten Dokumentzone bzw. den Peripherie-Zeitschriften. Die Implementierung von Bradfordizing und weiteren Re-Rankingverfahren liefert unmittelbare Mehrwerte für den Nutzer.
    Date
    9. 2.2011 17:47:29
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 62(2011) H.1, S.3-10
  3. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing mit Katalogdaten : Alternative Sicht auf Suchergebnisse und Publikationsquellen durch Re-Ranking (2010) 0.01 
    0.009852518 = product of:
  0.059115108 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=4301,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.017521333 = weight(_text_:und in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017521333 = score(doc=4301,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
    0.017797519 = weight(_text_:der in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017797519 = score(doc=4301,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.36271852 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
    0.017521333 = weight(_text_:und in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017521333 = score(doc=4301,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
  0.16666667 = coord(4/24)
    Abstract
    Nutzer erwarten für Literaturrecherchen in wissenschaftlichen Suchsystemen einen möglichst hohen Anteil an relevanten und qualitativen Dokumenten in den Trefferergebnissen. Insbesondere die Reihenfolge und Struktur der gelisteten Ergebnisse (Ranking) spielt, neben dem direkten Volltextzugriff auf die Dokumente, für viele Nutzer inzwischen eine entscheidende Rolle. Abgegrenzt wird Ranking oder Relevance Ranking von sogenannten Sortierungen zum Beispiel nach dem Erscheinungsjahr der Publikation, obwohl hier die Grenze zu »nach inhaltlicher Relevanz« gerankten Listen konzeptuell nicht sauber zu ziehen ist. Das Ranking von Dokumenten führt letztlich dazu, dass sich die Benutzer fokussiert mit den oberen Treffermengen eines Suchergebnisses beschäftigen. Der mittlere und untere Bereich eines Suchergebnisses wird häufig nicht mehr in Betracht gezogen. Aufgrund der Vielzahl an relevanten und verfügbaren Informationsquellen ist es daher notwendig, Kernbereiche in den Suchräumen zu identifizieren und diese anschließend dem Nutzer hervorgehoben zu präsentieren. Phillipp Mayr fasst hier die Ergebnisse seiner Dissertation zum Thema »Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing für die verteilte Suche in Digitalen Bibliotheken« zusammen.
    Series
    Lesesaal: Der Katalog der Zukunft
  4. Maylein, L.; Langenstein, A.: Neues vom Relevanz-Ranking im HEIDI-Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg : Perspektiven für bibliothekarische Dienstleistungen (2013) 0.01 
    0.008791618 = product of:
  0.052749705 = sum of:
    0.009537406 = weight(_text_:und in 775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009537406 = score(doc=775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 775, 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=775)
    0.02166245 = weight(_text_:der in 775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02166245 = score(doc=775,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.44148692 = fieldWeight in 775, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=775)
    0.0120124435 = product of:
      0.024024887 = sum of:
        0.024024887 = weight(_text_:29 in 775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024887 = score(doc=775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009537406 = weight(_text_:und in 775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009537406 = score(doc=775,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 775, 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=775)
  0.16666667 = coord(4/24)
    Abstract
    Das Relevanz-Ranking im Katalog der Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg HEIDI, bereits 2009 in einem Beitrag in dieser Zeitschrift beschrieben, wurde in den letzten Jahren durch neue Entwicklungen und Methoden stark verbessert. Der Aufsatz beschreibt die Realisierung der bisherigen Rankingmaßnahmen unter der neu eingesetzten Suchmaschinenplattform SOLR. Weiter werden verschiedene neue Möglichkeiten für Rankinganpassungen unter SOLR sowie deren Einsatz im HEIDI-Katalog dargestellt.
    Date
    29. 6.2013 18:06:23
  5. Behnert, C.; Borst, T.: Neue Formen der Relevanz-Sortierung in bibliothekarischen Informationssystemen : das DFG-Projekt LibRank (2015) 0.01 
    0.0070441393 = product of:
  0.056353115 = sum of:
    0.021326289 = weight(_text_:und in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021326289 = score(doc=5392,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 5392, 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=5392)
    0.013700536 = weight(_text_:der in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013700536 = score(doc=5392,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.27922085 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
    0.021326289 = weight(_text_:und in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021326289 = score(doc=5392,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 5392, 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=5392)
  0.125 = coord(3/24)
    Abstract
    Das von der DFG geförderte Projekt LibRank erforscht neue Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme, die aufbauend auf Erkenntnissen aus dem Bereich Websuche qualitätsinduzierende Faktoren wie z. B. Aktualität, Popularität und Verfügbarkeit von einzelnen Medien berücksichtigen. Die konzipierten Verfahren werden im Kontext eines in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften häufig genutzten Rechercheportals (EconBiz) entwickelt und in einem Testsystem systematisch evaluiert. Es werden Rankingfaktoren, die für den Bibliotheksbereich von besonderem Interesse sind, vorgestellt und exemplarisch Probleme und Herausforderungen aufgezeigt.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 39(2015) H.3, S.384-393
  6. Walz, J.: Analyse der Übertragbarkeit allgemeiner Rankingfaktoren von Web-Suchmaschinen auf Discovery-Systeme (2018) 0.01 
    0.0061453776 = product of:
  0.04916302 = sum of:
    0.0143061085 = weight(_text_:und in 5744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0143061085 = score(doc=5744,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 5744, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5744)
    0.020550804 = weight(_text_:der in 5744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020550804 = score(doc=5744,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.4188313 = fieldWeight in 5744, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5744)
    0.0143061085 = weight(_text_:und in 5744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0143061085 = score(doc=5744,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 5744, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5744)
  0.125 = coord(3/24)
    Abstract
    Ziel: Ziel dieser Bachelorarbeit war es, die Übertragbarkeit der allgemeinen Rankingfaktoren, wie sie von Web-Suchmaschinen verwendet werden, auf Discovery-Systeme zu analysieren. Dadurch könnte das bisher hauptsächlich auf dem textuellen Abgleich zwischen Suchanfrage und Dokumenten basierende bibliothekarische Ranking verbessert werden. Methode: Hierfür wurden Faktoren aus den Gruppen Popularität, Aktualität, Lokalität, Technische Faktoren, sowie dem personalisierten Ranking diskutiert. Die entsprechenden Rankingfaktoren wurden nach ihrer Vorkommenshäufigkeit in der analysierten Literatur und der daraus abgeleiteten Wichtigkeit, ausgewählt. Ergebnis: Von den 23 untersuchten Rankingfaktoren sind 14 (61 %) direkt vom Ranking der Web-Suchmaschinen auf das Ranking der Discovery-Systeme übertragbar. Zu diesen zählen unter anderem das Klickverhalten, das Erstellungsdatum, der Nutzerstandort, sowie die Sprache. Sechs (26%) der untersuchten Faktoren sind dagegen nicht übertragbar (z.B. Aktualisierungsfrequenz und Ladegeschwindigkeit). Die Linktopologie, die Nutzungshäufigkeit, sowie die Aktualisierungsfrequenz sind mit entsprechenden Modifikationen übertragbar.
    Imprint
    Köln : Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften
  7. Behnert, C.; Plassmeier, K.; Borst, T.; Lewandowski, D.: Evaluierung von Rankingverfahren für bibliothekarische Informationssysteme (2019) 0.01 
    0.0058011888 = product of:
  0.04640951 = sum of:
    0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016690461 = score(doc=5023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = 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)
    0.013028587 = weight(_text_:des in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013028587 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06083074 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.2141777 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016690461 = score(doc=5023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(3/24)
    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
  8. Fuhr, N.: Modelle im Information Retrieval (2013) 0.01 
    0.0057286876 = product of:
  0.0458295 = sum of:
    0.016859911 = weight(_text_:und in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016859911 = score(doc=724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
    0.012109677 = weight(_text_:der in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012109677 = score(doc=724,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.2467987 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
    0.016859911 = weight(_text_:und in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016859911 = score(doc=724,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.34630734 = fieldWeight in 724, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=724)
  0.125 = coord(3/24)
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried
  9. Hora, M.: Methoden für das Ranking in Discovery-Systemen (2018) 0.01 
    0.005232212 = product of:
  0.041857697 = sum of:
    0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016690461 = score(doc=4968,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 4968, 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=4968)
    0.008476774 = weight(_text_:der in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008476774 = score(doc=4968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.17275909 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
    0.016690461 = weight(_text_:und in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016690461 = score(doc=4968,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 4968, 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=4968)
  0.125 = coord(3/24)
    Abstract
    Discovery-Systeme bieten meist als Standardeinstellung eine Sortierung nach Relevanz an. Wie die Relevanz ermittelt wird, ist häufig intransparent. Dabei wären Kenntnisse darüber aus Nutzersicht ein wichtiger Faktor in der Informationskompetenz, während Bibliotheken sicherstellen sollten, dass das Ranking zum eigenen Bestand und Publikum passt. In diesem Aufsatz wird dargestellt, wie Discovery-Systeme Treffer auswählen und bewerten. Dazu gehören Indexierung, Prozessierung, Text-Matching und weitere Relevanzkriterien, z. B. Popularität oder Verfügbarkeit. Schließlich müssen alle betrachteten Kriterien zu einem zentralen Score zusammengefasst werden. Ein besonderer Fokus wird auf das Ranking von EBSCO Discovery Service, Primo und Summon gelegt.
  10. Oberhauser, O.: Relevance Ranking in den Online-Katalogen der "nächsten Generation" (2010) 0.00 
    0.0043454384 = product of:
  0.034763508 = sum of:
    0.010115947 = weight(_text_:und in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010115947 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 4308, 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=4308)
    0.014531613 = weight(_text_:der in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014531613 = score(doc=4308,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.29615843 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
    0.010115947 = weight(_text_:und in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010115947 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.20778441 = fieldWeight in 4308, 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=4308)
  0.125 = coord(3/24)
    Abstract
    Relevance Ranking in Online-Katalogen ist zwar kein neues Thema, doch liegt dazu nicht allzu viel Literatur vor, die das Prädikat "ernstzunehmen" verdient. Dies ist zum einen darin begründet, dass das Interesse an der Ausgabe ranggereihter Ergebnislisten auf Seiten aller Beteiligter (Bibliothekare, Softwarehersteller, Benutzer) traditionell gering war. Zum anderen ging die seit einigen Jahren populär gewordene Kritik an den bestehenden OPACs vielfach von einer unzureichenden Wissensbasis aus und produzierte oft nur polemische oder emotional gefärbte Beiträge, die zum Thema Ranking wenig beitrugen. ... Der hier beschriebene Test ist natürlich in keiner Weise erschöpfend oder repräsentativ. Dennoch gibt er, wie ich glaube, Anlass zu einiger Hoffnung. Er lässt vermuten, dass die "neuen" OPACs - zumindest was das Relevance Ranking betrifft - auf dem Weg in die richtige Richtung sind. Wie gut es wirklich gelingen wird, die Rankingleistung von Suchmaschinen wie Google, die unter völlig anderen Voraussetzungen arbeiten, einzuholen, wird aber erst die Zukunft zeigen.
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 63(2010) H.1/2, S.25-37
  11. Ravana, S.D.; Rajagopal, P.; Balakrishnan, V.: Ranking retrieval systems using pseudo relevance judgments (2015) 0.00 
    0.0013125994 = product of:
  0.015751192 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=2591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.010522088 = product of:
      0.021044176 = sum of:
        0.021044176 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021044176 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    18. 9.2018 18:22:56
  12. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Fleet, C. van: Opening the black box of "relevance work" : a domain analysis (2012) 0.00 
    0.0011283944 = product of:
  0.013540732 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0072658067 = weight(_text_:der in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072658067 = score(doc=247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.14807922 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
  0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
    Abstract
    In response to Hjørland's recent call for a reconceptualization of the foundations of relevance, we suggest that the sociocognitive aspects of intermediation by information agencies, such as archives and libraries, are a necessary and unexplored part of the infrastructure of the subject knowledge domains central to his recommended "view of relevance informed by a social paradigm" (2010, p. 217). From a comparative analysis of documents from 39 graduate-level introductory courses in archives, reference, and strategic/competitive intelligence taught in 13 American Library Association-accredited library and information science (LIS) programs, we identify four defining sociocognitive dimensions of "relevance work" in information agencies within Hjørland's proposed framework for relevance: tasks, time, systems, and assessors. This study is intended to supply sociocognitive content from within the relevance work domain to support further domain analytic research, and to emphasize the importance of intermediary relevance work for all subject knowledge domains.
  13. Baloh, P.; Desouza, K.C.; Hackney, R.: Contextualizing organizational interventions of knowledge management systems : a design science perspectiveA domain analysis (2012) 0.00 
    0.0010557787 = product of:
  0.012669344 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.00744024 = product of:
      0.01488048 = sum of:
        0.01488048 = weight(_text_:22 in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01488048 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(2/24)
    Date
    11. 6.2012 14:22:34
  14. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011) 0.00 
    6.404319E-4 = product of:
  0.015370364 = sum of:
    0.015370364 = product of:
      0.046111092 = sum of:
        0.046111092 = weight(_text_:p in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046111092 = score(doc=4349,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.58383846 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
    Abstract
    Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.
    Object
    P-Rank
  15. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.00 
    4.96016E-4 = product of:
  0.011904384 = sum of:
    0.011904384 = product of:
      0.023808768 = sum of:
        0.023808768 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023808768 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  16. 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 
    4.6116364E-4 = product of:
  0.011067927 = sum of:
    0.011067927 = product of:
      0.03320378 = sum of:
        0.03320378 = weight(_text_:p in 393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03320378 = score(doc=393,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.42041177 = fieldWeight in 393, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=393)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
    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.
  17. Costa Carvalho, A. da; Rossi, C.; Moura, E.S. de; Silva, A.S. da; Fernandes, D.: LePrEF: Learn to precompute evidence fusion for efficient query evaluation (2012) 0.00 
    3.1282406E-4 = product of:
  0.0075077773 = sum of:
    0.0075077773 = product of:
      0.015015555 = sum of:
        0.015015555 = weight(_text_:29 in 278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015015555 = score(doc=278,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 278, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
    Date
    24. 6.2012 14:29:10
  18. Silva, R.M.; Gonçalves, M.A.; Veloso, A.: ¬A Two-stage active learning method for learning to rank (2014) 0.00 
    3.1282406E-4 = product of:
  0.0075077773 = sum of:
    0.0075077773 = product of:
      0.015015555 = sum of:
        0.015015555 = weight(_text_:29 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015015555 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
    Date
    26. 1.2014 20:29:57
  19. Zhu, J.; Han, L.; Gou, Z.; Yuan, X.: ¬A fuzzy clustering-based denoising model for evaluating uncertainty in collaborative filtering recommender systems (2018) 0.00 
    3.1282406E-4 = product of:
  0.0075077773 = sum of:
    0.0075077773 = product of:
      0.015015555 = sum of:
        0.015015555 = weight(_text_:29 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015015555 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
    Date
    29. 9.2018 12:32:59
  20. Soulier, L.; Jabeur, L.B.; Tamine, L.; Bahsoun, W.: On ranking relevant entities in heterogeneous networks using a language-based model (2013) 0.00 
    3.1001001E-4 = product of:
  0.00744024 = sum of:
    0.00744024 = product of:
      0.01488048 = sum of:
        0.01488048 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01488048 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:34:49

Authors

Languages

  • e 17
  • d 10

Types

  • a 25
  • r 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes