Search (76 results, page 1 of 4)

0.057994973 = product of:
  0.17398492 = sum of:
    0.15981485 = weight(_text_:1091 in 3469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15981485 = score(doc=3469,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29288712 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.231152 = idf(docFreq=31, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.5456534 = fieldWeight in 3469, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.231152 = idf(docFreq=31, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3469)
    0.014170073 = product of:
      0.04251022 = sum of:
        0.04251022 = weight(_text_:k in 3469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04251022 = score(doc=3469,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12702256 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035582762 = queryNorm
            0.33466667 = fieldWeight in 3469, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3469)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Ranking information retrieval (IR) systems with respect to their effectiveness is a crucial operation during IR evaluation, as well as during data fusion. This article offers a novel method of approaching the system-ranking problem, based on the widely studied idea of polyrepresentation. The principle of polyrepresentation suggests that a single information need can be represented by many query articulations-what we call query aspects. By skimming the top k (where k is small) documents retrieved by a single system for multiple query aspects, we collect a set of documents that are likely to be relevant to a given test topic. Labeling these skimmed documents as putatively relevant lets us build pseudorelevance judgments without undue human intervention. We report experiments where using these pseudorelevance judgments delivers a rank ordering of IR systems that correlates highly with rankings based on human relevance judgments.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.6, S.1081-1091

0.03626485 = product of:
  0.108794555 = sum of:
    0.085415125 = weight(_text_:t in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085415125 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.60934615 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
    0.02337943 = product of:
      0.07013829 = sum of:
        0.07013829 = weight(_text_:k in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07013829 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12702256 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035582762 = queryNorm
            0.5521719 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

0.026635809 = product of:
  0.15981485 = sum of:
    0.15981485 = weight(_text_:1091 in 1280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15981485 = score(doc=1280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29288712 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.231152 = idf(docFreq=31, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.5456534 = fieldWeight in 1280, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.231152 = idf(docFreq=31, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1280)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1091-1106

0.018132426 = product of:
  0.054397278 = sum of:
    0.042707562 = weight(_text_:t in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042707562 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.30467308 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
    0.011689715 = product of:
      0.035069145 = sum of:
        0.035069145 = weight(_text_:k in 5023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035069145 = score(doc=5023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12702256 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035582762 = queryNorm
            0.27608594 = fieldWeight in 5023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5023)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

0.01626955 = product of:
  0.09761729 = sum of:
    0.09761729 = weight(_text_:t in 3907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09761729 = score(doc=3907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.69639564 = fieldWeight in 3907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3907)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.010168468 = product of:
  0.061010804 = sum of:
    0.061010804 = weight(_text_:t in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061010804 = score(doc=3824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.43524727 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Vocabulary as a central concept in digital libraries: interdisciplinary concepts, challenges, and opportunities : proceedings of the Third International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Science (COLIS3), Dubrovnik, Croatia, 23-26 May 1999. Ed. by T. Arpanac et al

0.008806151 = product of:
  0.052836906 = sum of:
    0.052836906 = weight(_text_:t in 4120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052836906 = score(doc=4120,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.37693518 = fieldWeight in 4120, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4120)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We studied the effectiveness of a new class of context-dependent term weights for information retrieval. Unlike the traditional term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF), the new weighting of a term t in a document d depends not only on the occurrence statistics of t alone but also on the terms found within a text window (or "document-context") centered on t. We introduce a Boost and Discount (B&D) procedure which utilizes partial relevance information to compute the context-dependent term weights of query terms according to a logistic regression model. We investigate the effectiveness of the new term weights compared with the context-independent BM25 weights in the setting of relevance feedback. We performed experiments with title queries of the TREC-6, -7, -8, and 2005 collections, comparing the residual Mean Average Precision (MAP) measures obtained using B&D term weights and those obtained by a baseline using BM25 weights. Given either 10 or 20 relevance judgments of the top retrieved documents, using the new term weights yields improvement over the baseline for all collections tested. The MAP obtained with the new weights has relative improvement over the baseline by 3.3 to 15.2%, with statistical significance at the 95% confidence level across all four collections.

0.008134775 = product of:
  0.048808645 = sum of:
    0.048808645 = weight(_text_:t in 3500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048808645 = score(doc=3500,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 3500, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3500)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.008134775 = product of:
  0.048808645 = sum of:
    0.048808645 = weight(_text_:t in 1734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048808645 = score(doc=1734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 1734, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1734)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.008134775 = product of:
  0.048808645 = sum of:
    0.048808645 = weight(_text_:t in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048808645 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.007190192 = product of:
  0.043141153 = sum of:
    0.043141153 = weight(_text_:t in 5169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043141153 = score(doc=5169,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.3077663 = fieldWeight in 5169, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5169)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Ruthven, Mounia, and van Rijsbergen rank and select terms for query expansion using information gathered on searcher evaluation behavior. Using the TREC Financial Times and Los Angeles Times collections and search topics from TREC-6 placed in simulated work situations, six student subjects each preformed three searches on an experimental system and three on a control system with instructions to search by natural language expression in any way they found comfortable. Searching was analyzed for behavior differences between experimental and control situations, and for effectiveness and perceptions. In three experiments paired t-tests were the analysis tool with controls being a no relevance feedback system, a standard ranking for automatic expansion system, and a standard ranking for interactive expansion while the experimental systems based ranking upon user information on temporal relevance and partial relevance. Two further experiments compare using user behavior (number assessed relevant and similarity of relevant documents) to choose a query expansion technique against a non-selective technique and finally the effect of providing the user with knowledge of the process. When partial relevance data and time of assessment data are incorporated in term ranking more relevant documents were recovered in fewer iterations, however retrieval effectiveness overall was not improved. The subjects, none-the-less, rated the suggested terms as more useful and used them more heavily. Explanations of what the feedback techniques were doing led to higher use of the techniques.

0.006427964 = product of:
  0.038567785 = sum of:
    0.038567785 = product of:
      0.07713557 = sum of:
        0.07713557 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07713557 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12460477 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035582762 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476

0.0061010807 = product of:
  0.036606483 = sum of:
    0.036606483 = weight(_text_:t in 910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036606483 = score(doc=910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=910)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0061010807 = product of:
  0.036606483 = sum of:
    0.036606483 = weight(_text_:t in 2396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036606483 = score(doc=2396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 2396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2396)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0061010807 = product of:
  0.036606483 = sum of:
    0.036606483 = weight(_text_:t in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036606483 = score(doc=3688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Common measures of term importance in information retrieval (IR) rely on counts of term frequency; rare terms receive higher weight in document ranking than common terms receive. However, realistic scenarios yield additional information about terms in a collection. Of interest in this article is the temporal behavior of terms as a collection changes over time. We propose capturing each term's collection frequency at discrete time intervals over the lifespan of a corpus and analyzing the resulting time series. We hypothesize the collection frequency of a weakly discriminative term x at time t is predictable by a linear model of the term's prior observations. On the other hand, a linear time series model for a strong discriminators' collection frequency will yield a poor fit to the data. Operationalizing this hypothesis, we induce three time-based measures of term importance and test these against state-of-the-art term weighting models.

0.0061010807 = product of:
  0.036606483 = sum of:
    0.036606483 = weight(_text_:t in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036606483 = score(doc=1165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0056244684 = product of:
  0.03374681 = sum of:
    0.03374681 = product of:
      0.06749362 = sum of:
        0.06749362 = weight(_text_:22 in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06749362 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12460477 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035582762 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2134, 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=2134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

30. 3.2001 13:32:22

0.0056244684 = product of:
  0.03374681 = sum of:
    0.03374681 = product of:
      0.06749362 = sum of:
        0.06749362 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06749362 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12460477 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035582762 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

25. 8.2005 17:42:22

0.005180693 = product of:
  0.01554208 = sum of:
    0.012202161 = weight(_text_:t in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012202161 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.087049454 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
    0.0033399183 = product of:
      0.010019755 = sum of:
        0.010019755 = weight(_text_:k in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010019755 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12702256 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035582762 = queryNorm
            0.078881696 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Editor

Mandl, T. u. C. Womser-Hacker

Footnote

"Evaluierung", das Thema des dritten Kapitels, ist in seiner Breite nicht auf das Information Retrieval beschränkt sondern beinhaltet ebenso einzelne Aspekte der Bereiche Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion sowie des E-Learning. Michael Muck und Marco Winter von der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik sowie dem Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften thematisieren in ihrem Beitrag den Einfluss der Fragestellung (Topic) auf die Bewertung von Relevanz und zeigen Verfahrensweisen für die Topic-Erstellung auf, die beim Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) Anwendung finden. Im darauf folgenden Aufsatz stellt Thomas Mandl verschiedene Evaluierungsinitiativen im Information Retrieval und aktuelle Entwicklungen dar. Joachim Pfister erläutert in seinem Beitrag das automatisierte Gruppieren, das sogenannte Clustering, von Patent-Dokumenten in den Datenbanken des Fachinformationszentrums Karlsruhe und evaluiert unterschiedliche Clusterverfahren auf Basis von Nutzerbewertungen. Ralph Kölle, Glenn Langemeier und Wolfgang Semar widmen sich dem kollaborativen Lernen unter den speziellen Bedingungen des Programmierens. Dabei werden das System VitaminL zur synchronen Bearbeitung von Programmieraufgaben und das Kennzahlensystem K-3 für die Bewertung kollaborativer Zusammenarbeit in einer Lehrveranstaltung angewendet. Der aktuelle Forschungsschwerpunkt der Hildesheimer Informationswissenschaft zeichnet sich im vierten Kapitel unter dem Thema "Multilinguale Systeme" ab. Hier finden sich die meisten Beiträge des Tagungsbandes wieder. Olga Tartakovski und Margaryta Shramko beschreiben und prüfen das System Langldent, das die Sprache von mono- und multilingualen Texten identifiziert. Die Eigenheiten der japanischen Schriftzeichen stellt Nina Kummer dar und vergleicht experimentell die unterschiedlichen Techniken der Indexierung. Suriya Na Nhongkai und Hans-Joachim Bentz präsentieren und prüfen eine bilinguale Suche auf Basis von Konzeptnetzen, wobei die Konzeptstruktur das verbindende Elemente der beiden Textsammlungen darstellt. Das Entwickeln und Evaluieren eines mehrsprachigen Question-Answering-Systems im Rahmen des Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), das die alltagssprachliche Formulierung von konkreten Fragestellungen ermöglicht, wird im Beitrag von Robert Strötgen, Thomas Mandl und Rene Schneider thematisiert. Den Schluss bildet der Aufsatz von Niels Jensen, der ein mehrsprachiges Web-Retrieval-System ebenfalls im Zusammenhang mit dem CLEF anhand des multilingualen EuroGOVKorpus evaluiert.

0.005084234 = product of:
  0.030505402 = sum of:
    0.030505402 = weight(_text_:t in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030505402 = score(doc=4746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14017504 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035582762 = queryNorm
        0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)